FeuchtBlog

Eine Nacht in Venedig by Johann Strauss, made for tv ★★★

Johann Strauss, Wiener Blut, made for tv ★★★

I am reviewing both operettas together, as I watched them together, and they share similarities. I would have given them only one star each, except that the music was truly wonderful, and well sung and performed. The problem with the operettas is their plots, which are almost the same, the main personality being a prince-philanderer who flirts with multiple women, three of whom through disguise or mistaken identity carry on the operetta to its conclusion when the ladies true identity is revealed and the prince gives in. Obviously, one operetta takes place in Venice, and the other in Vienna. I appreciated the film style of the operetta, which is so much better than watching a stage, though one could occasionally tell that the singers are lip-synching. The plots of both operettas tended to identify the sumptuous though trifling lives of aristocratic persons in Wien. Perhaps this is an unintended statement of Strauss in satirizing the ruling class. Whereas Strauss’ Fledermaus is a must-see, these two operettas are worth watching only if you are either an avid fan of opera or if you are intensely bored with absolutely nothing else to watch.

Der Kuhhandel, by Kurt Weill ★★

This opera is about the country of Santa Maria that started as a peaceful, happy country, until corruption encouraged the leaders into an arms race with a neighboring country, resulting in oppressive taxation and brutality to its citizens. The staging was not totally minimalistic, and so was endurable for a European produced production, and the singing/acting was well done. The opera was interesting in that if one simply closed their eyes and listened to the music, they would imagine that they were listening to a modern American move-musical, such as a Rogers & Hammerstein musical or the Wizard of Oz, etc. I am sure that Kurt Weill had a major influence on later composition of musicals.

So, why the poor rating? Weill was a Jewish composer that had to flee Germany during the Nazi years, eventually dying at age 50 in NYC. His political leanings tended toward Communism, and this opera represents a very strong leaning toward the same. Yet, it represents highly confused thinking, possible attributing to why the opera never really became popular. The corrupt government is the source of evil. Simple, primitive life is good. The government is hell-bent on destroying your life, while living themselves a life of luxury. Unfortunately, all of these traits were present in virtually all of the socialistic or communistic regimes of the 20th century. When Weill protests capitalism, he also glorifies capitalism by extolling the virtues of owning private property (a cow, which is the peasants means of producing a living). Such muddled thinking is so true of most liberals today, shooting a “capitalist” straw man. Weill seems to protest moral decadence by having the fat government officials relishing in a brothel, yet, had the brothel maidens dancing in the forefront at the end of the opera. Perhaps Weill needs better direction as to a real (I actually mean, only) system of morality.

Aufstieg und Fall der Stadt Mahagonny, by Kurt Weill from text of Bertoldt Brecht, performed at Salzburg Festival 1998 ★

Known in English as “The Rise and Fall of the City of Mahagonny”, this opera by Kurt Weill rates among the worst of the Euro-trash operas. Though Weill has had occasional lapses of reasonable music that he has written, his ideologic drive for communism has clouded his thinking and produced a piece of trash that would not survive the kindest of the Soviet years. To be fair to this opera, I will critique separately 1) the musical performance, 2) the stage performance, and 3) the opera itself. First, the musical performance was not too badly performed. The only problem is that there was little the was overtly demanding, including no demands on the singer, save to sing weird, no lengthy segments, no  music that could even be thought of as likable. The stage performance represented a complete lapse of ingenuity. Isn’t one tired of the suitcase on stage carried by a Zoot-suited individual, as is now seen in just about every European opera production? I could wax eloquent about how virtually every scene lacks in creative imagination. The minimalist staging suggested that the producer really didn’t care enough for the opera to put much into it. And, that is quite understandable, because it was not an opera to enjoy or appreciate as a work of art. Brecht (via Weill) at the end of the opera spewed out a vindictive against capitalism, the stage designers and Brecht not-so-subtly implying that the greatest sinners of their communistic ideology are the Americans. A leading character named Jimmy is sentenced to death for a lack of money. I presume that Weill was attempting to make some sort of profound statement against greed and monetary avarice, but he fails dismally. Any thinking person finds the philosophical statements of this opera to be poorly developed non-sequitors with a forced conclusion, believed only by Brecht and Weill, and perhaps a few of the performers and audience. Such go the warm and fuzzy statements of the new art, promoting the warm and fuzzy sentiments of the new philosophy and the new politic. It’s one thing to have wasted one’s money on this opera, but even a worse crime to have wasted one’s time watching it.