Christopher Webber wrote: > ...Should we perform Handel's "Tamerlano" in mediaeval Mongol and >Persian getup? Of course not, because that's not what Handel and his librettist intended. >To do so would go against the ethos of the whole work, which is >grounded in 17th/18th century concepts of order against divine right. So far, so good. >No, an 18th or 20th century setting is much more appropriate. 18th century, yes - see above. 20th century - no, it makes no sense. The concept of "order against divine right" became obsolete a long time ago. >A production of mine even set in it 19th c. revolutionary Cuba, without >violence either to Handel's drama or his music; That's your opinion; I think it make no sense and it does violate Handel's intention. And his music, too. >at all events, fox furs and yashmaks were not a practical option for us! Did Handel use yashmaks, whatever this is? >Part of Anne Ozorio's point was that operas have often not been staged >in the time and place specified by the libretto, even at first. But that's not the point: it's the time and place intended by the librettist and composer that count. >Her example of Wagner's own stagings of his operas is a very good one: >he didn't set his Bayreuth "Lohengrin" in a realistic Mediaeval Brabant >water meadow any more than he set "The Ring" in the land of the sagas. >As the Matter of Germany was infinitely more important to him than the >matter of either the Low Countries or Iceland, as a designer he set both >of them in his own, fantastic 19th c. vision of Teutonic myth, to which >'real' mediaeval or dark age places or people were subsidiary. Brabant >was certainly not on the itinerary for "Lohengrin"'s creator. No, but Wagner had a very precise idea of a fantastic myth, HIS myth, and that what's important. >...I wonder how the cunning old theatrical fox would react to today's >stagings? Who can say. One thing I'm quite sure of: whatever he might >have thought of the stagings, he'd have adored the controversy! For him, >it was 'Opera as Drama' or nothing at all. And how can you be sure? Can you read his mind? Now? You are projecting your ideas on somebody else. >... I can sympathise with Jan for finding this messy, and yearning to >keep things pure. Alas, theatre can by its nature have nothing to do >with this theoretical purity: but it does - sometimes - work! Sometimes - there are always exceptions - but very rarely. I'm afraid that most of the time all this "re-examining" is nothing more than a fad, a compulsion to come up with something different, without a good reason. -Margaret Mikulska