I thank Christopher Webber for the opportunity to elaborate my convictions
with respect to the SF production of "Cunning Little Vixen." I'm venturing
into areas easily misunderstood, and apologized for any misunderstandings
due to my inability to perfectly convey my thoughts into words.

I want to state at the outset, before replying in detail to Mr. Webber's
note, that (1) in general I love modern stagings, (2) I have no problem
with altering original stage directions, (3) I probably go farther than
most in approving musical alterations as well.  All alterations only
must have artistic validity as best determined by the effect on audiences,
critics and posterity.

By all of the criteria above except posterity, which must wait, the SF
Vixen is a successful rendition, and artistically valid even from my
point of view.

I am not a conservative.

However, in the specific case of this opera, I was grievously disappointed
for what I feel are valid, if apparently not widely shared reasons.

The SF/Bregenz production capitalizes on the conceptually valid approach
of animating Janacek's life obsessions, but in overconcentrating on his
fixation for Kamila Stosslova, the production does a grave disservice
to his abiding belief in the restorative power of nature and the outdoors.

Janacek grew up in the very small town of Hukvaldy, where he had intimate
association with rural peasant life.  Passed on by his father for economic
and educational reasons to the Queen's Monastery in Brno at age eleven,
one can only imagine the shock to his system in the change of scene from
sun to dark corridors, from a Moravian-speaking village to a German-dominated
city not far from Vienna.  From that time onward, freedom in many senses
became the first of what I consider his three great obsessions, one that
was continually constrained by economic, political and marital conditions.

Hence his second obsession, his need to go "back to nature" for restoration
of his life forces.  Like many Europeans of his era, he performed a
yearly pilgramage to the Luhacovice spa town where he took to the waters
and to the trails.  During these sojurns and elsewhere he meticulously
recorded the sounds of wildlife and humans, all part of the same sphere
of nature.

And of course, it was during one of these restorative walks in 1917 that
he met Kamila at a corner of the trail on a bench, thus beginning the
third and most miraculous obsession, one that combined the first two and
produced the series of masterpieces that American audiences are only now
just beginning to discover.

To stick the Forester, the Janacek surrogate, in a pub for the duration
of the opera denies a major aspect of Janacek's personality epitomized
by this more than any of his operas, the wonder and restorative powers
of nature.  To blanket the stage for the most part in dark and somber
lighting, to exclusively oppress the scenes with concrete-appearing
arches (though I understand they were made, very expensively, out of
wood) appropos of a catacomb, to militate against the external by
overemphasizing the internal and urban: these choices, in my view,
pervert the full meaning of this work.

As to specific comments:

>Jeff Dunn writes of the SF "Cunning Little Vixen":
>
>>Most people I talked to afterwards, however, liked the sets, thinking
>>them appropriate to the "modern music."
>
>In a way that "modern productions" quite often can be, for most audience
>members.

My point here is ironic: if a stereotype develops that all recent operas
are expected to have urbanized, post-apocalyptic or abstract productions,
no one will take advantage of the opportunities where realistic, outdoor
presentations may offer a superior audience experience.  The objection
is similar to the tonality/atonality debate.  Why have either one or the
other when each can be appropriate in the right artistic setting?

>>When this opera becomes overplayed enough that radical
>>re-interpretations seem necessary, perhaps these sets that insult
>>Janacek's memory should be tried again.
>
>In what way does a strong interpretation of a strong piece insult his
>memory?  Remember that it was Janacek, in tears, who added the shooting
>and death of The Vixen into the sentimental folksy original.  It sounds
>to me from the descriptions I've read as if the SF production fairly
>reflects the spirit of his work: this opera above all is not about
>soft-focus, pastoral charm.

It insults his memory because of the negation of Janacek's trying to
present the restorative power of nature and the outdoors, scenically and
ecologically in addition to many other aspects.  For me this is a key
element of the opera not served by the production.  I'm not talking about
a condescending view of nature as "soft-focus, pastoral charm," but as
a hard-edged, vibrant, in-your-face and at the same time magical, REAL
aspect of the world.

The death of the vixen was in particular mishandled in my view.  The
libretto has the poacher shoot "randomly" into the crowd of vixen and
cubs stealing his bag of fowl.  The cubs scatter leaving the mother
behind, dead.  Down curtain.  Life is wonderful, but it can end quickly
while the rest of nature moves on.  Instead, the SF production had the
vixen shot alone slowly slumping down the wall.  This was milking it to
be more like the death of Prokofiev's Tybalt.  It should be brilliant
and shattering like a flash bulb in the eyes, with absolutely no lingering
OR sentiment.  The clever Vixen is in a way like Till Eulenspiegel--does
she get what she deserves?

>>In the meantime, truly outdoorsy sets with easier-to-decipher animal
>>costumes should be used to educate audiences with Janacek's original
>>vision, rather than poison them with falisty as I believe these SF
>>Opera sets do.
>
>Vehement accusations.  What can have bugged Mr Dunn so deeply, in what
>sounds a pretty standard 21st century staging?  Personally, I'm relieved
>his prescriptive faux-realism is a thing of the dim past.  Most modern
>audiences will know plenty about this classic work, with multiple DVDs
>available as well as many live productions, so maybe the need to "educate"
>them comes second to entertainment, stimulation and re-interpretation.

I totally disagree with Mr. Webber's contention about modern audiences--
at least in the U.S.  England is at least a decade ahead if not more in
exposure to Janacek.  The production I'm criticizing was the first ever
in SF.  Americans, I'm afraid, are woefully unfamiliar with Janacek.
The only DVD available here is the animated version with Nagano.  Too
me, it's too much the way that Mr.  Webber complains about, too cutesy,
with little of the psychological import that Janacek intended.  I hope
the opera comes back to SF in a non-dungeon version one of these years.
Then we can ask which provided the more meaning.

>I think Mr Dunn also underestimates the scope of Janacek's "original
>vision" which encompasses harsh, ugly reality as well as folk comedy.
>Over and above the Vixen's death, read the composer-librettist's
>description of the final scene at the Inn, and listen to what has
>happened to the human characters.

Perhaps we could get some elucidation here.  There is plenty of ugly
reality outdoors.  The scene in question, by the way, is supposed to
take place in a "garden behind the Inn," not in a dank bar.

>>As far as I'm concerned, this version is Watership Down in a sewer,
>>despite fabulous singing.
>
>Not, mercifully, for most of the audience - including some old and
>traditional-aware friends of mine, who loved it.  Maybe Mr Dunn could
>get underneath his indignation, to examine the possibility that he has
>missed out on something worthwhile.  As Janacek's finale reminds us, the
>world - and theatrical style - moves ever on.

I think what Janacek reminds us is that the world moves forever on and
BACK, on and back, on and back.  That's what DNA's all about.  Where
would we be if we were 100% mutation?

Jeff Dunn