in the Mission District, San Francisco
Years ago I read Manon Lescaut, the novel by Abbé Prévost that launched the charmer on her notorious career; it struck me as more of a parody of a certain type of sensibility-infused romance rather than the thing itself (if you've read early Austen up through Northanger Abbey you know how it struck me), which maybe indicates a basic disjunction between my gestalt and that of the novel & its ensuing dramatic adaptations. I have nonetheless heard multiple recordings & heard the opera live in three other productions, including the last run-through at San Francisco Opera of this Vincent Boussard production, which had fine turns by Elllie Dehn & Michael Fabiano as the lovers. So it's an opera I've heard a surprising number of times, given the basic indifference I felt about it. (I'm talking here about the version by Massenet, though I feel a similar way about Puccini's version.) But during this latest revival of Manon at the Opera I started to feel, to my great surprise, that it was a much better work than I had ever given it credit for.
As with rivers, stepping into, we never hear the same opera twice, but I doubt that anything I've gone through since my last Manon has made me more simpatico with the tale. And this isn't a case in which the production made all the difference, because as mentioned I've seen this production before. And I liked & continue to like it quite a lot, with its gently applied surrealism, its striking tableau, even its metaphorical balloons (at least they're an apt metaphor, being festive, fragile, & ultimately environmentally toxic). Even when the production verges on silliness (or crosses over, depending on your tolerance), as when Manon floats down from above, Mary Poppins-like, clutching a bunch of balloons, it's a thematically appropriate silliness, capturing the frivolous world of Parisian luxury she's temporarily inhabiting.
So what happened to me this time? I think I have to give credit to conductor Eun Sun Kim & to the two leads, Amina Edris as Manon & Pene Pati as the infatuated Chevalier des Grieux (in the off-stage world, Edris & Pati are married to each other). The extra dimensions all three brought to their roles eased my way towards revelation; from the moment the overture started under Kim's direction, I felt an authority & richness in the music that had never really registered with me before. There is a prejudiced tendency to think of French opera, with a few notable exceptions (Carmen, Pelleas, anything by Berlioz) as fairly wispy, but the vitality of this score sprang alive this time under Kim's baton.
Pati has a gorgeous, expressive voice, & there's a certain sunniness that comes through in his performances, joined with a certain level of joyful innocence, that makes him dream casting for the role of an idealistic young man besotted with his first love. But it was what Edris brought to the title role that was the real revelation for me. I remembered finding her voice, strictly as a voice, more gorgeous in the John Adams Antony & Cleopatra, though she certainly sang Manon with great beauty & distinction. But she also brought to her an intelligence & an emotional complexity I haven't seen before in this role.
I've always heard the character of Manon described as "charming", which only goes so far; to me, it's like saying "emotionally trivial but attractive & she knows it" – not necessarily a winning combination, beyond a superficial acquaintance, & you do really have to go beyond the superficial in a performance that lasts close to three & a half hours. Edris captured the passing iridescence of such a character, the lightness & frivolity that convinces the smitten that life & love can always float beautifully on, & that gave a poignancy to her portrayal when it edged into darker moments. Her rendition of the famous Act 2 aria, Adieu notre petite table, was genuinely wistful & moving; I felt sincere love behind her regret that she had to wake up, alone, from their beautiful dream. And when she seduces the clerical Chevalier in Act 4, her motives are complex: yes, she's displaying her sexual power over a former lover (& a vowed celibate), but you also sense her genuine feelings for the man, & her regret that their time of idyllic youth has so quickly passed away.
Because it turns out this opera is pretty hard-headed about the economic basis of society & of marriage. Even when Manon foolishly, fatefully urges the Chevalier to the gaming tables, it's because she is aware that their life together cannot continue with the means they have (she is aware of him, but also of money; he is aware only of her). It takes a lot of cash to pay for elegant frivolity, & unless you're born wealthy, the accumulation of capital is not elegant, or frivolous, or really anything but life-draining drudgery. The final tragedy is brought about by a spurned & vindictive older man. who accuses the lovers of cheating at cards. This man had earlier rented the entire ballet to perform privately, as his way seducing Manon by impressing her with his willingness to squander money on her whims. Unfortunately that's when she's decided to go to Saint-Sulpice to seduce her former love, the Chevalier. The incident is brilliantly shown in this production: something that looks like a large gilded cage slowly descends, but we, like Manon, see no dancers; like her, we are distracted. The rich man is distraught, & eventually takes his revenge.
The attitude towards wealth is one of the many ways in which this opera contrasts with La Bohème. In Puccini's opera, the rich old men are mostly foolish dupes; it's part of the youthful magic of that opera that we don't see their ultimate social power the way we do in Manon. A golden nostalgic glow lies over Bohème, even though it also ends tragically (but the nostalgic glow softens the blow). But to me it always feels very much like a retrospective tragedy, a remembered loss rather than a raw wound caused by the set-up of society. (We tend to associate Mimi's death with her poverty, but tuberculosis was I think for the original audience linked more to la vie de bohème rather than lack of adequate nutrition &c – that other famous victim of tuberculosis, Violetta, was not only financially successful as a courtesan, she supported Alfredo during their rural interlude). Does anyone ever watch Bohème & feel that the characters are trapped in poverty for the rest of their lives? I'd be surprised. Poverty, like youthful love, is seen in a fond backward glance. These things are picturesque, once you know they're temporary.
Look at Act 2 of Manon, by contrast: first Manon, aware that her lover is about to be snatched from her (by his father's underlings), sings a warm, loving – & private – farewell to their little table, the beloved furnishings of their simple, but adored because shared, apartment: a farewell to their whole life together. (But we already know that the humble & simple things of life can't hold her for long.) Then she goes off stage & he has a solo, a dreamy aria with gently undulating music underneath, fantasizing about a lovely cottage for the two of them, somewhere off in the (presumably somehow affordable) countryside, where they can pass the rest of their lives in blissful peace & contented happiness (an aria sung with oneiric elegance by Pati). When they come together at the end of the act, they have a brief exchange, each lover knowing what the other one doesn't, or can't; she aware that their time together is ending, he dreaming implausible dreams that it will float on forever. We see them suddenly & dramatically pulled apart, as we & Manon have been expecting, but the Chevalier is blindsided; not even halfway through the opera, he is plunged into grief, a grief that will return, in a deeper way, at the end, when he loses her to death.
Contrast that with Mimi & Rodolfo in their Act 1: they each have their big solos, each describing themselves to the other; then, after telling each other who they are, they unite for a rapturous duet that signals the two lives are now linked, a duet of such never-failing voluptuous intensity that it inevitably draws tears even from those lukewarm about their opera (in other words, from me). One opera gives us the delirium of mutual love (that is, what many people like to imagine love is, or at least a past love was), while the other shows two passionately entangled people who are ultimately at cross purposes & not saying to each other what really needs to be said. I suppose it's a matter of personal choice, or history, or memory, which of those the listener finds more convincing as a picture of life.
All in all, as I said, the performance was a bit of a revelation for me, a surprise which I received gratefully. Experiencing Manon again fell into the "why not?" category for me, but I came out with new respect for the work. It was not only on stage that the Opera went all out; even the lobby was decorated suitably. The place was bedecked with beads & feathers & lots of pink lighting & a shop for bespoke corsets & other suitably frivolous decor. I do regret that they missed the chance to pay homage to Act 4 by constructing a side chapel in which, under a bare-bodied Jesus, you could make out with an ex. But if even operatic lovers can't have everything, neither can we, I guess.
(Douglas Tilden's The Tired Boxer: you & me both, bro)
Wow, the new computer set-up is all much, much more time-consuming & irritating than even I thought it would be! I'm still having troubles: the mouse doesn't work (is it another faulty piece of equipment, like the first laptop they sent me, or did I misread the inexplicable stick figures that pass for "instructions"), the photography set-up is, um, odd, the screen is too small for me to see (yes, I know I can enlarge the font), but an on-going theme here is that you have to hunt & peck & guess at these things, & anything you touch could turn out to be the very thing you did not want to touch. Feh! I won't even start on the tech companies; my generalized loathing of them has not been eased by my recent experiences. They keep wanting to sell me more products & services that I don't need when I really just want the ones I've already overpaid for to work. Big Tech now has the annoying tendency to insist that I can only operate under various "accounts", even if it means taking over an identity I've already created & giving me a new ID that requires new passcodes &c which I don't have because I didn't set them up. And no, I don't want to receive texts from you, faceless tech company,for the rest of my life. And you can't just block them, as someday you may need to hear from them, with more of those codes &c to get access. Underlying all this, of course, is the classic trope of "cranky old person who doesn't understand technology". It's inaccurate: I'm a cranky old person who has enough experience with technology to figure things out, eventually, but to be wary & annoyed while I do so. Arguably, in fact, people my age are more adept at tech than younger people: anyone starting out now in computers knows he/she/they should learn the MS Office Suite, & a few other things. When I was starting my working life, it was the Wild Wild West & I had to learn multiple systems quickly, & unlike today's systems they did not have a basic set-up in place (so that for instance someone now looking for a copy function has a pretty good idea of where to look). In fact for about half of the 1980s I worked at a publishing house where they would throw me on to various desktop publishing systems, have me learn them ASAP (let me revert to office lingo), & then teach them to others, & assist them, all while also having to meet actual deadlines on real projects, often ones that had been messed up by people paid more than I was This would have been great if they had made it clear what was going on; instead I had the feeling I was thrown into systems & then yanked off them just as soon as I was beginning to figure them out, while my manager sniped at me for . . . well, anything that came into his mind. But complaints about terrible managers, especially ones long ago & far away, are not really the path I want to travel down here. I plan to start posting again soon, though possibly without photographs. I can always go back & add some later. In fact I always go back & tweak my posts anyway.In short: new opinions, or old ones repurposed, coming soon; deepest thanks to those who have been checking in. Some day I'll get all this figured out, just like life.
My computer died on Labor Day weekend. It was sudden but not unexpected. It was showing signs, warning signs, but of course I put off dealing with it because of a general lack of time, energy, & money; also, I hate hate HATE dealing with things like this. I just want things to work, & to keep on working. The obvious & inevitable result of my ostrich-with-his-head-in-the-sand behavior was that I was forced to deal with it, on an inconvenient timeline that was not one I picked. And the whole thing has not gone well! Obviously nothing can be simple or easy or even work the way it's supposed to. I bought a replacement, then had to send it back as it was defective, then . . . well, look, I'm not interested in this stuff, why should you be?
People of course have been offering advice, which is mostly even more useless than most advice, &, what's worse, reactions of envy, as I've been freed from the suffocating embrace of our current world, &, well, NO. I still have to do the same things, they're just more difficult to get done. Yes, I survived for decades without a computer, but the infrastructure that was in place – the newspapers, magazines, phone directories, maps, box offices, &c, that could answer questions such as "when does the show start?" or "where is the venue?" – have all mostly migrated online. I've been staying abreast, at least of email, just barely, with a public-use computer, & I'm glad I have that resource, but there are drawbacks, such as other people: there is a regular user of these computers who can turn a single lozenge into an entire percussion section. I've never heard anything like it. Then there's the person who comes in to watch Fox, whom I have to remind, every single time, that he's supposed to use headphones. Not an atmosphere conducive to writing up performances, or doing much of anything else but catching up with email & then getting out.
Presumably my new system will be up & running in a few days (of course, I've been thinking that for days now. . . ). Then I have to figure out how to do the things I was used to do on my old system. We have our little shortcuts, we fall into our grooves, & now I have to re-plough those grooves in my digital earth.
Anyway: back soon with the usual fare, I hope. Thanks to those who have been checking; much love to you! And I hope to see you soon in our usual digital realms.
detail of Saint Luke writing the Gospel by Miguel Ximénez, seen at BAM/PFA as part of the special exhibit Some Particular Heaven: Ideas of Utopia in the BAMPFA Collection
detail of Saint Mary Magdalene by Gaetano Gandolfi, seen at BAM/PFA as part of the special exhibit Some Particular Heaven: Ideas of Utopia in the BAMPFA Collection
detail of The Fish, also known as The Fish and Flowering Branch, a stained-glass window by John La Farge, now in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston
detail of a self-portrait by Jeanne Hébuterne, seen at SFMOMA as part of the exhibit Matisse's Femme au chapeau: A Modern Scandal
The preview lasted about an hour & though there was no official announcement of what portion we were seeing, I think, based on a closing surtitle saying it was the end of Act 1, that we were seeing the first half of the opera. Of course what we heard is contingent & in process & incomplete, but I found it powerfully persuasive & am very excited to experience the completed work next summer. Alyssa Weinberg is the composer, Stephanie Fleischmann the librettist, Jonathan Khuner the music director, Elkhanah Pulitzer the stage director, & Chris Steele the dramaturg; Nikola Printz is Claude, Laura Bohn is Marcel, Angela Yam is Charlotte, their maidservant, & there is a chorus made up of Samuel Faustine, Glenn Healy, Laurel Semerdijian, Kyle Tingzon, & Matthew Worth.
When I entered the nondescript grey & black of the Wattis Theater, I was a bit alarmed to note an amplifier on stage, but it is used mostly for what I'll call, for lack of a better term, sound effects used as music, which would not otherwise carry into even a small space: breathing, for example. We open with rhythmic breathing, which summons up not only (obviously) breath, but the sound of a heart beating (the basic things of life) & merges into natural sounds, the breeze & in particular the ocean. In the spirit of its protagonists, anything can be appropriated & turned into art, into music & drama. Even the conventional orchestral instruments take on new colors, often being played in extreme ways, with a skittering & flittering effect that sounds like the frayed edges of music & the natural world; it is a beautiful, liminal world, in an unworldly light – like Debussy on acid. You hear traditional forms being bent, stretched, transformed, making the music a mirror to the surrealist view of the world, & as such, this is the sound world of Claude & Marcel.
Charlotte has music that is much more flowing & melodic; I don't mean it to sound condescending or dismissive when I say her music is more conventional. It's quite beautiful, & mirrors Charlotte's attempts to understand the two strange mesdames who have hired her for a job she desperately needs. The class & social differences between the two artist-outsiders, both from wealthy backgrounds (which is why they can afford a big house on the Isle of Jersey), & their farmgirl helper are examined with subtlety & care. Charlotte clearly is a bit nonplussed by these odd birds, but willing to accept what might even be their scandalous ways (are they just stepsisters? who are very close? or something more?) & to defend them to overly curious villagers, sometimes by dismissing their accurate guesses as to what the two ladies are. The ladies in turn can be, with the authority of their class, peremptory towards servants, though there's also the defensive fear of revealing themselves too far to possibly traitorous outsiders, even if the outsiders are economically dependent subordinates.
The chorus is sometimes villagers, sometimes occupying soldiers from the German (Nazi) Army. The two blend together. The villagers are curious about the very strange women who have moved in. The Germans are as well. There is no sentimentality, either positive towards the villagers or negative towards the soldiers; both groups are shown convincingly as a mixed bag of ordinary people. The extended sound-effects continue, with stamping feet as one of the musical effects, & also much laughter among the soldiers, as another interesting musical effect. The soldiers are not overdone villains: they are bullies who can threaten & sneer & cause serious harm, but they're also boys far from home, in a place that isn't going to feed them the propaganda they grew up on. I'm not suggesting that the presentation of the Germans is sympathetic, but it is nuanced, which is a good thing. Given their presentation as in many ways ordinary young people, you can see why & how Claude & Marcel's subversive acts could sway them; these are not convinced members of an alleged Master Race, but ignorant boys forced into positions of power they aren't suited for.
The relationship between Claude & Marcel is deftly handled: their low-level squabbles, their uncertainty in the face of the looming Nazi threat, their abiding love of each other & commitment to each other & their mutually-made art. I listed the singers above, & if you are familiar with those names, you know the very high level of singing & acting & commitment we were given. There were indications in the surtitles that the staging will involve some surrealist-dream-style dissolves between locations, & as I mentioned earlier the music flows between the natural world (particularly the sea) & the psychological / social reality of the characters. This was a preview performance, so the piece is in flux, & more no doubt can & will be said about the finished product. What I say here is even more provisional than usual. But I found the hour quite absorbing, with many intriguing possibilities; it will be very exciting to see how they play out in the completed work.
The 1980s were the years I spent in Boston; this story resonated with me on several levels, as I was familiar with the splendid Sargents in the MFA's collection as well as the work of another major character in the opera, Isabella Stewart Gardner, whose eponymous museum, located just a few blocks from the MFA (& not that far from my last apartments) is one of my favorite places on earth. (Many a reverie of mine has been if not resolved then ended as I thump down to earth on the thought, Goddammit, why don't I have a Veronese Room?) Sargent gave Gardner an album of sketches of McKeller (signed, unlike many of his sketches: what might that signify?), which she did not display publicly but kept in her Museum. The rediscovery of these sketches led to the exhibit Boston's Apollo, which I missed seeing because of the pandemic; the catalogue is an in-depth look at Sargent & McKeller & worth reading for anyone intrigued by the subject. That exhibit brought new prominence to the relationship between artist & model.
I found the opera a subtle & layered work, & I'm glad I saw it twice. Nobody knows for sure what the relationship was between the painter & his favored model; even bohemian & wealthy artistic circles could be discreet, & passing time always erases life in its wake (a number of scholars have done heroic work piecing together what can still be known about McKeller's life). Time may erase life, but art can linger; there is, above all, the now celebrated nude portrait of the model not as a god or hero but as a man (who radiates godliness & heroism in his joyful nakedness). Probably drawing inspiration from that painting, & its history of being kept privately by the artist, this work tells a definite & probable story of a romantic relationship between the two men. It's not the only possible story from what hints remain to us, but it's convincing & compelling.
Geter also insets Reynaldo Hahn's song À Chloris. It's a bold move, incorporating another composer's work, but it not only strengthens the period feel, it also resonates thematically here, in an opera about taking from different sources, different cultures, different ways, & shaping what you've taken into something of your own (even as you're adding to, being subsumed in, another tradition). It's worth looking at the lyrics & music of the song: setting a fairly banal celebration of triumphant & reciprocated love by the Renaissance poet Théophile de Viau (you can find the words here), Hahn transforms the text into something new & deeper with his music (a sound which is simpatico with the aura summoned by Geter's for this opera), providing an exquisitely melancholy Bach-like tune, adding a deeper dimension to the words, as if even in the moment of wild first joy the speaker knows that his love, this nacreous bubble, will soon vanish, its momentary beauty gone except for memory & concomitant regrets. Sargent sits down at the piano during a modeling session & starts playing & singing the song. He explicitly compares what Hahn is doing to what he (& McKeller) are creating: a new twist on old, very old, themes. McKeller doesn't know the song, but he knows enough French & enough music to pick up the score & sing the rest of it. Sargent tells him he's full of surprises. The wistful song, with its sense of a blissful love lost, will ripple through the orchestra as the work proceeds.
The racial difference is a running theme, & how could it not be, but so are differences in age & class & background & worldly experience between the two men. There is a real connection there, as we see when McKeller collaborates with Sargent during their sessions, which become like a director & an actor puzzling out a drama together, but how much of a chance would these two really have together, in their world or ours? A former valet / model (&, presumably, lover) of Sargent's shows up & threatens him & McKeller. He makes dismissive references to Sargent's taste for "exotics" (meaning men of color), as if the jaded aging man needed increasingly spicy dishes for his palate to taste anything, & as if this young American Black man were some sort of fancy foreign import instead of a refugee from North Carolina.
Given all the complicating factors, Sargent & McKeller do not have a steady affair. Reality intervenes, as reality does. Sometimes the intervention is tragic, as when the First World War convulses the globe; German bombs kill relatives of Sargent's; McKeller enlists in the American army. Sometimes the intervention is positive, as when Isabella Stewart Gardner brings the men back together, as she sees how powerfully McKeller has inspired her friend's art. (Even her commitment to art, though, has sadness underpinning it; she sings of how she dedicated herself to beauty after her little son, barely two years old, died.) With her keen eye & abundant spirit, she does with artist & model what she did with artworks in her museum: she arranges, she juxtaposes sometimes unlikely elements, creating out of existing objects something new, a vivid spark of the memorably gorgeous.
And don't artists always have the last, or at least the lasting, word? As the painter & his model go from "Mr Sargent" & "Mr McKeller" to "John" & "Tom", the model wants to be seen as himself: that is, not as a model. A model has an artistic function that often involves metamorphosis & erasure. McKeller knows what the deal is, of course; it's a wish to be in a different world, a different relation to Mr Sargent / John. In the very moving final scene, McKeller hears of the painter's death (by then he's left the hotel for a job as a postal carrier, & his close friend Ida Mae shows him the newspaper when he stops by on his route). He goes by his studio to pay his respects. That part is historical fact. What is perhaps speculative, but certainly compelling, even overwhelming, is that it's only then that McKeller discovers the portrait of him that Sargent did. He is overcome by this proof that the artist's transforming eye had in fact seen him for who & as he was.
You can't present a rich & subtle work without rich & subtle artistry. If artists have the last word, as Sargent did viewing McKeller, here are some of the artists who had the last, or at least latest, word with their viewing of Sargent viewing McKeller: Kedrick Armstrong led a gorgeous performance of the gorgeous score, & Nataki Garrett molded it all on stage. Baritone Markel Reed performed Thomas McKeller; he doesn't particularly look like McKeller, outside of both being Black men, but he has a commanding stage presence & a rich, resonant, honeyed voice; this must be a really taxing role, given the length of the opera & the demands it places on him, but he had the strength & power to make his ending liebestod, in which he sees Sargent's portrait of him & realizes its implications, deeply moving. Tenor John Bellemer performs John Singer Sargent, with great beauty of tone & delicacy of touch. He makes the famous man both surprisingly tentative around his models & authoritative in his artistic vision. Isabella Stewart Gardner is not an easy role – there's always the danger of slipping into a caricatured Eccentric Rich Lady mode, sort of a haute monde Auntie Mame (I hate Auntie Mame, by the way), but soprano Marnie Breckenridge brought warmth, wit, & understanding to the performance. Alexandra Armantrading creates a warm, compassionate Ida Mae McDonald, indelible in her few appearances, as does Leberta Lorál as Thomas's mother (as well as another minor role). Matt Hidalgo brings cynical anger & some floating high notes to Nicola D’Inverno (the former valet / model / lover); he also portrays Mr Sparhawk. Philip Harris, Wilford Kelly, Michael Belle, & Alex Taite are all memorable in small roles. Outstanding work all around.
I was reminded of one of the first operas I saw, the Peter Sellars production of Handel's Orlando at ART in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in 1982. His idea was to set the work in Cape Canaveral, saying that the contemporary marvels of moon flight were an apt equivalent to the fanciful machinery of baroque opera. The result, propelled as was this production by a cast of superb singers, was so clear & persuasive that a year or so later a co-worker of mine swore it had been performed in English. As those were the days before surtitles, I had thought long & hard, in my opera-going infancy, about whether I wanted to sit through three hours of a drama in a language I basically did not understand. So I told her that I was "pretty sure" (meaning dead certain) it was performed in Italian. She kept telling me I was wrong. A few days later, though, she did grudgingly admit that she thought "perhaps" I "might have been" right about the language. I gave my usual response in such situations, a bland smile, but insert internal eye-roll.
I mention this because there is no real "performance tradition" of these operas; they sank out of sight, mostly, after the eighteenth century & have only been revived in our day. I've seen productions that range from powdered wigs & period-appropriate stage machinery to high-concept modernist shenanigans. One of the many advantages of baroque opera is exactly that there is no performance tradition; the works are flexible & sturdy enough to take on all kinds of approaches.
And that's the most astute thing about this choice: it doesn't diminish or mock the material. Just as Mark Morris in The Hard Nut used the graphic style of Charles Burns to shed fresh & illuminating light on Tchaikovsky's Nutcracker, so the comic-book setting here not only clarifies the drama but gives it a contemporary intensity it might lack in a less considered new setting. The vivid colors (lots of dark purple among the wicked, a peacock-blue body suit for our hero) & the bold graphic backgrounds (handled by shifting & skillful projections, designed by Yuki Izumihara), with fights illustrated as in the 1960s Batman TV series with Pow! & Blam! in graphic bubbles, all lie easily on the sumptuous & varied music of Handel's rich score (conducted with verve & authority by Emily Senturia).
As our massively strong & righteous titular superhero, countertenor Kyle Tingzon, clear & pure & true of voice & person, justified the baroque preference for high-voiced heroes. As with many heroes noted for physical strength – Hercules, Samson, Ajax – there's a comic angle to the treatment of him, & a bit of obtuseness in his make-up (both are amusingly illustrated in his battle with the little birds during his picnic with Almirena). He is constantly flexing, grinning, standing with hands fisted on hips Superman-style, striking poses. What you see is what you get, mostly, though he does have his suffering arias, which Tingzon delivers as movingly as you could wish, piercing through the heroic exterior to display a genuine heart within. The posing is actually pretty remarkable; I've seen dramas in which someone playing a boxer has clearly studied his pugilistic choreography but in between those moments lets himself go slack. Tingzon was alert & on point throughout, while also delivering fountains of glittering vocals, a remarkable feat of physical & mental concentration.
Contralto Sara Couden plays Goffredo, here recast as a Commissioner Gordon type, head of the metropolitan police, with an impressively bushy walrus moustache & even more impressive low notes. There's an amusing running gag in which Rinaldo, unaware of his strength, obliviously crushes the Commissioner's hands during a handshake, or unsettles him with the heartiness of a backslap. The Commissioner tries gamely to keep up. He's also a bit appalled by some of Rinaldo's more crotch-centric poses, but that's what you get with superheroes. Shawnette Sulker plays Almirena, the Commissioner's adorable daughter & Rinaldo's love, with pert & appealling comedy, though she also can pluck heart strings with her rendition of what is possibly this opera's most famous aria, Lascia ch'io pianga. (Funny how often in comedies it's the moment of sadness that stands out; to take an obvious operatic example Una furtiva lagrima from the otherwise lightly comic L'Elisir d'amore.) To complete the roster of good guys, we have Gabi Esquinazi in a couple of striking smaller roles, as a Siren & a Magician who helps Goffredo & Rinaldo defeat the forces of evil, transporting them to their magic lair (their supervillain hideaway) on a magical craft: a tandem bicycle. As the Magician, Esquinazi was in a glowing pink ensemble & seemed to be making a play for the Commissioner in various subtle ways, hints the Commissioner decided not to take.
I could rave on & one, with details that instead will be stored in memory, to be replayed over & over. this performance (which, as with all the West Edge productions, I saw twice) was pure joy from beginning to end: even the somber moments are done with such talent, such conviction, such brio that they contribute to the overall sense of joy. I have seldom left a theater with quite this level of exhilaration. If only they could bottle this essence & sell it. Would I restrict myself to a few sips a day. or just heedlessly down the heady elixir?