The conclusion of Don Carlo(s)
Sat, Sep 3 2011, 7:15PM
I watched the Chatelet Don Carlos again the other night, one of best dvds in my collection and certainly my favourite Verdi performance.
But as in every other performance I've seen, the ending is a total misfire, particularly disappointing here after such a gripping performance.
Charles Osborne's view (The Complete Operas of Verdi) is that the ending is a miscalculation on Verdi's (and Mery's and Du Locle's) part and producers should try force-fitting the Schiller original. I'm almost convinced, but watching it this time I could just about imagine how a clever producer with some imaginative staging could bring it off as Verdi wrote it. Difficult, because there's no doubt he does bring the opera to an abrupt close, dangerously short-changing what should have been a satisfying solution to the impasse between Philip and Carlo(s).
My question is this. Has anyone on this forum seen a satisfactorily-staged conclusion to this opera? Has there been a successful realization of the Schiller alternative?
Wed, Sep 7 2011, 5:46PM
#2
RE: The conclusion of Don Carlo(s)
Here's one Tagalie... I actually disagree with Charles O on this - I think the genius of the ending is that everything in this opera is deliberately dysfunctional, and what is set up as a romantic end (ie.Carlo and his love saying a fond farewell before he makes a hero's exit) is turned to a mess (think of what Shakespeare does with Troilus and Cressida - where a romantic story ends with Pandarus droning on about STDs and bequeathing the audience his diseases!). Musically though it's very satisfying. Dramatically it needs actors who can convey what this end is - a point of crisis. And crisis is where the state and the personal meet and are active in this opera. The old ROH film of the Visconti production does it well, with the brilliantly vivid Luis Lima as Carlo. The new one from the same venue is also good.
Thu, Sep 8 2011, 1:54AM
#3
RE: The conclusion of Don Carlo(s)
Thanks James.
There are many conflicts in the opera - surely one of Verdi's very best dramatically. Between Philip's hard nosed face-to-the-world, state and king at any cost, and Carlos's humanitarian views there surely can be no meeting point and it looks like the end for Carlos when Philip arrives with his men.
But what do we make of the appearance of Charles V/friar/ghost? It could be a coup de theatre, portrayed as supernatural intervention, something more real, something in between. Even if the question is unresolved, it should take our breath away. But in the Chatelet performance the hand from the door is redolent less of divine intervention than unsavoury beckoning in a red light district. And in the Karajan Salzburg show, stage lighting is too murky to decipher what's going on.
If producers can conjure up rainbow bridges, giants and dragons you wouldn't have thought it would be beyond them to make something, much, of this episode. But I have to say that if I don't always agree with Charles Osborne on all things about Don Carlos (for instance he dismissed the French version, which I think works superby), I do get the sense Verdi didn't time this scene well and perhaps that's why it seldom works.
Arguing with myself, I can see a version in my head that comes off and it sounds like you've seen one staged. Anybody else?
Thu, Sep 8 2011, 11:59AM
#4
RE: The conclusion of Don Carlo(s)
The conclusion to Don Carlo(s) has been a puzzlement to me for many years too. I have read that historically Don Carlo was far different to the romanticised character Verdi and his librettists portrayed. I also seem to recall reading that the character of Rodrigo/Rodrigue was fictional. Of course changing historical facts is not new in opera, plays and films in an attempt to add drama where there was none. I'm sorry I can't shed any new light on your question. Do you know how Schiller ended the play on which the opera was based?
Thu, Sep 8 2011, 1:50PM
#5
RE: The conclusion of Don Carlo(s)
Thu, Sep 8 2011, 2:34PM
#6
RE: The conclusion of Don Carlo(s)
The conclusion to Don Carlo(s) has been a puzzlement to me for many years too. I have read that historically Don Carlo was far different to the romanticised character Verdi and his librettists portrayed. I also seem to recall reading that the character of Rodrigo/Rodrigue was fictional. Of course changing historical facts is not new in opera, plays and films in an attempt to add drama where there was none. I'm sorry I can't shed any new light on your question. Do you know how Schiller ended the play on which the opera was based?
I do know that Don Carlo had what we would term today as "learning difficulties."
Thu, Sep 8 2011, 5:04PM
#7
RE: The conclusion of Don Carlo(s)
As far as I recall, the Schiller ends rather weakly (in terms
of operatic potential) with Philip saying to the Grand Inquisitor something
along the lines of “I have done my duty, now do yours”, meaning the dispatching
of Carlos. The equivalent of the great King/Inquisitor duet in Verdi is
Schiller’s penultimate scene, again not ideally placed for an operatic treatment
I should have thought, hence its relocation in the opera. It might seem strange
to say of a 5 Act grand opera, but the Verdi is a much tauter work.
I’ve always liked Verdi’s ending. Given that trying to rationalise
and make sense of any number of operatic plots is a fruitless exercise, I’ve
never had any problem with the sense of mystery (indeed sometimes complete
bafflement) caused by the appearance of Charles V.
As far as its staging is concerned, the ENO production of
about 15 (?) years ago was very impressive, with Charles reappearing as a ghost
(?) apparition (?) of his youthful self in splendid shining gold armour rather
than the more usual friar’s robe.
JKH
Thu, Sep 8 2011, 5:59PM
#8
RE: The conclusion of Don Carlo(s)
JKH, you're right. There's no suggestion of a Charles V ghost or actual reappearance in Schiller. Carlos dresses as a monk to terrify the guards (Charles V's ghost was rumoured to revisit in monk's robes) and so clear his way to see the queen. A friar does appear, or is heard offstage intoning. The ending is unequivocal. Carlos is handed over to the Inquisitor with Philip's words, "Cardinal I have done my duty. Do yours." It's a bleak, cold finish. The machinery of state and church has triumphed. I can see it working. Osborne believes it would involve a simple re-assignment of lines from the libretto. But then, you could say that amounts to serious tampering, because as far as I know that was never a finale version considered by Verdi.
I'm mystified by how badly it has been managed in the few performances I've seen. Having just watched the Solti Die frau ohne Schatten with falcons, Emperors entombed in rocks, the unborn making an appearance, all kinds of wonderfully-managed stage effects, the appearance of a ghost to spirit off somebody would seem to be absolutely no sweat.
Fri, Sep 9 2011, 1:09PM
#9
RE: The conclusion of Don Carlo(s)
I still think it's deliberately left messy, just as the (very) ending of Il Trovatore is deliberately fast and melodramatic. I've only seen the play on stage once, in the brilliant Sheffield/Michael Grandage production with Derek Jacobi as Philip. Actually, twice, as it was so good that I saw it again when it came down to London!
Sat, Sep 10 2011, 11:00PM
#10
RE: The conclusion of Don Carlo(s)
Good subject, Tagalie, but too specialised.
The Opera, as the most popular form of the Classical music is, by definition, full of conventions (see compromises) as far as the libretti, staging, etc. and the only (true) redemption comes with the music, which transcends and transforms every triviality, absurdity and so on. Fortunately, Don Carlo belongs to those great ones that the music justifies even the worst case scenario.
Maybe, in more musical terms, you may initiate a thread on whether the high "Cs" in the "all armi" of Trovatore are Verdi's or added by unknown "masters" of dubious character. Anyway, we'll see.
Parla
Sat, Sep 10 2011, 11:39PM
#11
RE: The conclusion of Don Carlo(s)
I still think it's deliberately left messy, just as the (very) ending of Il Trovatore is deliberately fast and melodramatic. I've only seen the play on stage once, in the brilliant Sheffield/Michael Grandage production with Derek Jacobi as Philip. Actually, twice, as it was so good that I saw it again when it came down to London!
But isn't Schiller messy? In 'I Masnadieri' based on 'Die Rauber' it ends with the hero killing his girlfriend, to save her, and goes off to Prague to get hanged for his crimes all to a rapid, thumping early Verdi score.
Is the close of Don Carlo(s) an example of an opera that is better heard than seen because the music needs no visual distraction to attain maximum impact, in fact benefits from it?
Sun, Sep 11 2011, 12:31AM
#12
RE: The conclusion of Don Carlo(s)
Yes, Troyen1, yes. Eventually, we may agree on something.
Despite the theatrical (along with staging, costumes, etc.) aspects are integral part of the work, the music counts on all accounts. At least, when you have to study and appreciate the work as such. If you are in the theatre, you have to confront the... very often distracting (and not only) truth.
Parla
Sun, Sep 11 2011, 2:32AM
#13
RE: The conclusion of Don Carlo(s)
Which is, in a way, my point. If it works so well as a recording, why can't it hang together on stage? Verdi certainly had the skills to translate his ideas onto the stage but in this particular case I haven't seen it done effectively, though others on this thread have. I still feel Verdi would have helped a major event - the appearance of the friar/Charles V - to achieve its intended impact if he'd allowed the music a little more breathing room.
I don't buy that some operas are meant only to be listened to. Sure, there are operas easy to stage, others less so. But sooner or later talented producers and directors find a way.
Sun, Sep 11 2011, 6:09PM
#14
RE: The conclusion of Don Carlo(s)
Which is, in a way, my point. If it works so well as a recording, why can't it hang together on stage? Verdi certainly had the skills to translate his ideas onto the stage but in this particular case I haven't seen it done effectively, though others on this thread have. I still feel Verdi would have helped a major event - the appearance of the friar/Charles V - to achieve its intended impact if he'd allowed the music a little more breathing room.
I don't buy that some operas are meant only to be listened to. Sure, there are operas easy to stage, others less so. But sooner or later talented producers and directors find a way.
i didn't put that as I referenced the closing scene only.
The Paris Opera of the 1830s had spectacular productions of the operas of the day when the producers and directors were as famous as Spielberg is now and where, may I suggest, the music became secondary.
Having put that, besides a small number of very famous operas by very famous composers we know very little of these works by the likes of Halevy, Auber, Meyerbeer et al.
I suspect that Verdi, particularly at the Don Carlo(s) stage of his career, knew exactly what he was doing, as usual!
Although I watch a lot of opera on satellite and DVD (Dessay's sexy Lucia is one to catch as is her regimental daughter) I do not own any as I find that productions pale after a while and those that pale the quickest are those from the relentlessly traditional and totally sexless Met, irrespective of how wonderful the performance.
The last I saw was an updated Manon from Berlin with Netrebko arriving by train reading a '40s fanzine.
No she did not die on a stalled Eurostar outside Calais.
Sun, Sep 11 2011, 11:28PM
#15
RE: The conclusion of Don Carlo(s)
[Although I watch a lot of opera on satellite and DVD (Dessay's sexy Lucia is one to catch as is her regimental daughter) I do not own any as I find that productions pale after a while and those that pale the quickest are those from the relentlessly traditional and totally sexless Met, irrespective of how wonderful the performance.
Up to two years ago I would have totally agreed with you on Met productions. The Netrebko Puritani is a museum piece. But the ones I've seen lately suggest they may be trying to drag their audience kicking and screaming into the 20th, if not 21st, century. The Met Butterfly (do I hear cries of 'slush!!!') released on dvd last year is the best performance I've seen - and there's an opera I never expected to see matching the version in my mind.
I'm OK with Dessay and would love to see her Lucia, but in both this and Fille du R. she's up against tough competition. Voice versus voice it may be a case of swings and roundabouts between her and Ciofi, but when it comes to acting ............... Ciofi's Lucia on dvd is actually Lucie, the French version, but still amazing. And I'd take the Ciofi/Florez Genova F. du R. over Dessay/Florez ROH ditto any day. Dessay's a ham (hamess?) not an actress.
Sigh...........
Trying to get a reaction from the opera gang on anything other than The Passing of the Golden Age of Great Voices (which, ever since I've been alive, has always been about 30 years prior to today's date) or favourite recordings of one of a dozen or so warhorse works, is like peddling Viagra at a Eunuch's Convention.