What opera have you been listening to, lately?

[Amfortas]

As my only gripe on another thread, while she sings this beautifully, she is about 4x the age of Pushkin's Tatyana, so they have to use this little trick of the dancer representing the real(?) Tatyana as Stoyanova (if the dancer is her, then what is Stoyanova? the soul?) sings.

I didn't see the whole production, but I guess it's more like a reflection of middle-aged Tatyana (by Stoyanova), and the dancer may represent the young Tatyana. It should have nothing to do with the age of the singer.

You're both wrong.

Clearly, not only is Stoyanova the older Tatyana, but her character has gotten caught up in a time loop, so that she has gone back to the past and taken a job in her old family disguised as Filippyevna, the nanny. This way she can help raise her younger self and teach her to avoid the same tragic mistakes. Unfortunately, the younger Tatyana falls into the very same traps, and ultimately goes back in time to try to protect *her* younger self, in an endless repeating cycle. It's the director's meditation on Nietzsche's idea of the eternal recurrence of history.

I can't be the only one who gets this.

[cedric]

A possible point, but in that case, I would argue this entirely changes what Tchaikovsky set out to do with Eugene Onegin and would be inconsistent with Pushkin's original story. Eugene Onegin is not a tale of people reminiscing about a lost and foolish youth, but about the decisions that people live through. This story has an entirely different meaning (as different as the most extreme forms of Regieoper and the productions of Calixto Bieito) if it is the story of a pair of people in middle age dreaming about the decisions of their earlier youth. If this is true, then I don't see why traditionalists don't complain massively about this production (which I did see in the cinema this year)... wait I know why they don't complain. Because for most traditionalists, Regieoper = naked people doing offensive things that "I" don't like, and not Regieoper = director going off-script and deviating from the composer's intent, as it should be.

First, I doubt there is a consensus about the intent of the poem or the opera Eugene Onegin and I don't believe there should be. Even though there were, it should not prohibit the director from interpreting it in his own way. ''Going off-script and deviating from the composer's intent'' is not a problem to me at all, as long as it is self-consistent.

Actually, according to my understanding of the opera, I even think that the brokeback mountain version by Krzysztof Warlikowski is the closest to what Tchaikovsky set out to do

[tyroneslothrop]

Even though there were, it should not prohibit the director from interpreting it in his own way. ''Going off-script and deviating from the composer's intent'' is not a problem to me at all, as long as it is self-consistent.

Then you believe, it seems, in the legitimacy of Regieoper, as do I. But a lot of traditional opera-goers would not, although they wouldn't mind in this case as it doesn't involve naked people or toilets.

[Luiz Gazzola (Almaviva)]

Then you believe, it seems, in the legitimacy of Regieoper, as do I. But a lot of traditional opera-goers would not, although they wouldn't mind in this case as it doesn't involve naked people or toilets.

I for one also do believe in the legitimacy of Regioper, and do appreciate some smart stagings that subscribe to this trend. What I don't like is what I call "extreme Regie" with shock for shock's sake, cheap fishing for 15 minutes of fame by showing gratuitous grotesque imagery, and profoundly altered endings. But having an interesting concept for the interpretation of a piece, while still respecting the music, and while not distorting the core symbolic elements of the plot, is perfectly fine.

As everything else in life, the extremes are rarely good. If you overdo too much in these Regie concepts it becomes ridiculous and cheap - putting a masturbating giant bunny on stage (a true example) is rarely a good idea. Similarly, if you are extremely rigid in presenting an opera in a very static and non-interpretative way (the other extreme) then it can be dull and boring. A happy medium, be it a traditionalist or a Regie production, especially when there is talent, coherence, and good taste, is almost invariably much better.

And then, the other problem with Regieoper is that while trying to be unconventional people are just substituting one set of conventions for another one.

All these Regie productions with the obligatory old naked lady, the obligatory anachronistic machine gun, the obligatory reference to evil capitalism or dictatorial systems of government, not forgetting some pints of blood (usually when none is anticipated by the libretto) and some trash spread around the stage and graffiti on the walls, are even more boring than the most boring traditional production.

[cedric]

Then you believe, it seems, in the legitimacy of Regieoper, as do I. But a lot of traditional opera-goers would not, although they wouldn't mind in this case as it doesn't involve naked people or toilets.

Yeah I'm totally for good Regieoper And I think naked people can appear in a good or bad production

[Amfortas]

On a more serious note, thanks for posting the Onegin clip. I too enjoy Stoyanova's singing, and the production is attractive (I love the red dresses against the subdued, shadowy background). Since the opera is very much about the sad passage of time and looking back on missed opportunities, I'm fine with Kasper Holten the director juxtaposing an older, wiser Tatyana with her younger self--which also allows him to utilize the separate talents of singer and dancer. That said, because the younger Tatyana is necessarily unaware of the older one's presence, there is minimal interaction between the two, giving the concept a rather limited payoff (though it becomes more interesting with the fantasized appearance of Onegin himself and an eventual embrace between the two Tatyanas).

From that standpoint, it's instructive to compare the same scene in Mariusz Treliński's recent Valencia production (which I've highly touted elsewhere on OL). Here Tatyana is shadowed, not by her older self, but by the older, decrepit version of Onegin. Perhaps the whole scene, then, is his embellished fantasy of her tormented love for him. At any rate, the concept allows for a highly stylized interaction I find a good deal more theatrical and compelling. (Of course it helps that Kristine Opolais can both sing beautifully pass visually for a young girl).

[Luiz Gazzola (Almaviva)]

(Of course it helps that Kristine Opolais can both sing beautifully pass visually for a young girl).

I'll go one step further, and say that it helps that Kristine Opolais is scorching HOT!

Evidence (see what happens at 3'10" ):

[tyroneslothrop]

Since the opera is very much about the sad passage of time and looking back on missed opportunities, I'm fine with Kasper Holten the director juxtaposing an older, wiser Tatyana with her younger self--which also allows him to utilize the separate talents of singer and dancer.

Of course I understand why they had to do two Tatyana's from a pragmatic perspective--it's been a long time since Stoyanova could pass for a 13yo girl--however, this is absolutely not the story of Eugene Onegin. Eugene Onegin is a bildungsroman told from a third-person narrator perspective. So if there is any reminiscing of the past, it is the narrator's reminiscences and not the reminiscences of either Eugene or Tatyana. In particular, from Canto I to Canto VIII, less than 5 years pass. Tatyana is 18yo at the end of the tale, not 52. Now, if we wanted to make her 52, at the end of her life looking back on her youth, well that would be a different bildungsroman named after Tatyana. So I absolutely do not like the idea that Holten took liberties with the story, especially as Tchaikovsky changed not a single word of Pushkin's poetry (well not many at any rate), so there was clearly no aim on Tchaikovsky's part to tell a different tale of people at the end of life going back and thinking of their misspent youth. And to me a change like this is as extreme as anything else in the Regieoper world.

[Amfortas]

so there was clearly no aim on Tchaikovsky's part to tell a different tale of people at the end of life going back and thinking of their misspent youth. And to me a change like this is as extreme as anything else in the Regieoper world.

But the characters *do* think back on their misspent youth. The final scene between Onegin and Tatyana is powerful in part because they look back and realize they came close to happiness but missed it (whether they actually would have been happy together is another question, but that's not the point).

So yes, directors take liberties when they add these reminiscence devices. But to me it seems very much in keeping with the spirit of the opera.

[tyroneslothrop]

But the characters *do* think back on their misspent youth. The final scene between Onegin and Tatyana is powerful in part because they look back and realize they came close to happiness but missed it (whether they actually would have been happy together is another question, but that's not the point).

Yes, but that's the point. It is a brief one-time reminiscence of events less than 5 years gone, and not a reminiscence from 40 years later at the far end of one's life. This is not the reminiscence of an older and wiser Tatyana, but one who is barely out of childhood herself--at 18. This story is not one of constant reminiscence as Holten production has it, from the start to the end.

[Amfortas]

Yes, but that's the point. It is a brief one-time reminiscence of events less than 5 years gone, and not a reminiscence from 40 years later at the far end of one's life. This is not the reminiscence of an older and wiser Tatyana, but one who is barely out of childhood herself--at 18. This story is not one of constant reminiscence as Holten production has it, from the start to the end.

True, the final scene shows a one-time reminiscence from only a few years later. But surely we're left with the impression that both Onegin and Tatyana will spend the rest of their lives looking back with regret at what might have been. After all, if their lost chance at happiness isn't such a crucial a turning point, why is it worth presenting in the first place?

So again, I don't see it as that big a stretch, or that far removed from the opera's main concerns, to offer a glimpse of the characters' later, more distanced perspectives.

[tyroneslothrop]

True, the final scene shows a one-time reminiscence from only a few years later. But surely we're left with the impression that both Onegin and Tatyana will spend the rest of their lives looking back with regret at what might have been. After all, if their lost chance at happiness isn't such a crucial a turning point, why it is worth presenting in the first place?

Certainly Onegin will look back although the narrator leaves him at the moment that Tatyana departs. But honestly, I don't think Tatyana will reminisce at all. The way she said her piece and left, she is too pragmatic for that:

...
Я вас люблю (к чему лукавить?),
Но я другому отдана;
Я буду век ему верна».

XLVIII
Она ушла.

"Why hide that I love you (here she uses the formal form of the word "you" so it is not even a real endearment) but I am given to another and will never leave him." She leaves.

I have to tell you, those two words, "she leaves," say it all. Very deliberate on Pushkin's part.

[Amfortas]

Certainly Onegin will look back although the narrator leaves him at the moment that Tatyana departs. But honestly, I don't think Tatyana will reminisce at all. The way she said her piece and left, she is too pragmatic for that:

"Why hide that I love you (here she uses the formal form of the word "you" so it is not even a real endearment) but I am given to another and will never leave him." She leaves.

I have to tell you, those two words, "she leaves," say it all. Very deliberate on Pushkin's part.

Yes, she leaves. She has too. And she uses the formal "you" to try to establish some distance from Onegin. But it tears her up inside. We know this--she's *told* him, and us, that she still loves him desperately.

She's more aware of her position, more careful to maintain it, than Onegin; as a woman at that time, she would have to be. But that doesn't mean she's any less passionate. In fact, based on the opera at least, I'd say her feelings run a good deal deeper than his.

[Luiz Gazzola (Almaviva)]

Certainly Onegin will look back although the narrator leaves him at the moment that Tatyana departs. But honestly, I don't think Tatyana will reminisce at all. The way she said her piece and left, she is too pragmatic for that:



"Why hide that I love you (here she uses the formal form of the word "you" so it is not even a real endearment) but I am given to another and will never leave him." She leaves.

I have to tell you, those two words, "she leaves," say it all. Very deliberate on Pushkin's part.

To tell you the truth, it's actually kind of surprising that Tatyana still loves him. I would expect from her, strong and sophisticated woman at that point in her life, to be totally over this misguided youthful love for a dandy who ends up being very neurotic and empty.

So, yes, the romantic ideal would have her still loving him, but in real life, it's pretty unlikely. She'd think of him as a silly teenage crush, and would be asking herself "why in the hell did I ever love this guy? How silly of me!"

Because if we think of it, Eugene is pathetic. Tatyana's character is a much stronger person.

So, one way to think of it, is that when she tells him she loves him, she is actually cruelly getting her revenge, because he'll feel a lot more tortured thinking about the "what if" instead of her just trying to laugh him off and humiliate him by telling him, "me, love you? Don't flatter yourself, I'm not that stupid girl any longer." With this, Eugene would probably turn his own love to hatred and get over her as well, so, the way to really punish him is to tell him that she still loves him.

Because Tatyana has good reasons to hate him. He killed her beloved sister's fiancé, and threw the sister's life in turmoil (events didn't turn very favorable to poor Olga, who got pregnant, fled with another man, etc.).

So, it would be fitting for Tatyana to inflict the maximum amount of pain she could, and the best way to do it would be to confess to an enduring love (as unlikely as it was) but then say "you can't have me anyway."

PS - I'm aware that this is romantic literature/opera and not real life, but we *can* have a different look at the situation and interpret it this way, even if it wasn't Pushkin's or Tchaikovsky's intention - once the art work is out there, it's open to interpretation.

[Amfortas]

To tell you the truth, it's actually kind of surprising that Tatyana still loves him. I would expect from her, strong and sophisticated woman at that point in her life, to be totally over this misguided youthful love for a dandy who ends up being very neurotic and empty.

So, yes, the romantic ideal would have her still loving him, but in real life, it's pretty unlikely. She'd think of him as a silly teenage crush, and would be asking herself "why in the hell did I ever love this guy? How silly of me!"

Because if we think of it, Eugene is pathetic. Tatyana's character is a much stronger person.

So, one way to think of it, is that when she tells him she loves him, she is actually cruelly getting her revenge, because he'll feel a lot more tortured thinking about the "what if" instead of her just trying to laugh him off and humiliate him by telling him, "me, love you? Don't flatter yourself, I'm not that stupid girl any longer." With this, Eugene would probably turn his own love to hatred and get over her as well, so, the way to really punish him is to tell him that she still loves him.

Because Tatyana has good reasons to hate him. He killed her beloved sister's fiancé, and threw the sister's life in turmoil (events did turn very favorable to poor Olga, who got pregnant, fled with another man, etc.).

So, it would be fitting for Tatyana to inflict the maximum amount of pain she could, and the best way to do it would be to confess to an enduring love (as unlikely as it was) but then say "you can't have me anyway."

She might indeed be doing all that. And at the same time, *still* love him.

Amazing how complicated people can be.