Unfortunately the sound wasn't synched with the image for the whole of the first half, which was disconcerting to say the least. It didn't look at all like a live performance.
Although it's the cinema, the tickets aren't cheap, so I was more than a little disappointed. After the screen went dead in the second half, suddenly it was OK. No idea whether it was the fault of the Met or the cinema. No one apologised or explained.
The thing is, although it was an amazing production, I think I am going off Met operas. The singers & musicians are always wonderful. (The Queen of the Night was probably the best I've ever heard). The trouble is, for me, that is what is important - the music & the story. The Met spends money like it's going out of fashion - it must be all of those philanthropic & hugely wealthy Americans who bankroll it & want the kudos of a truly spectacular production.
Do the costumes really always have to be quite so over the top? Ditto the sets? Does the chorus really need to be quite so huge, some not singing, just adding bulk? Do we always need to have ballet in every opera? I find myself distracted by the whole thing. The puppets were amazing & very beautiful, but I felt over stimulated.
The Met nearly went bust not long ago despite the sponsors. I'm not in the least surprised. Just because you can spend money doesn't mean you should. They have obviously never heard the saying "less is more". They should try letting the music & story speak for themselves. Even for an opera like this which lends itself to wonderful costumes & sets.
Whats more important - the singers & the songs or the sets & the "schmutter"?
We are lucky to be able to see great performances from London & all over the world, but I hope live streaming doesn't result in a competition to outdo eachother like women's coffee mornings when they compete to produce the best cake.
No comments:
Post a Comment