Author : Johan Uytterschaut
To be honest, I have for some time doubted whether I would write this piece. Some way or other, the Medea I watched from New York on October 22nd failed to inspire me. Execution issues? Not really – at least, not fundamentally. Disappointing production? Yes and no. This needed some reflection. It was only after some thinking that it started to dawn on me that the texture of this opera contains a flaw, at least, in the version being shown on October 22nd. Originally, Cherubini’s Médée was in 1797 an opéra comique. To put it bluntly, a “play with music”, containing spoken dialogue alternating with musical pieces. Executed in French. Within the great Paris theatre tradition, this kind of show fitted wonderfully well, given the pompous, even pathetic style they used to “declaim” their dialogues. Hopefully outdated, you will say; justly so. But let us not forget that this pompous theatrical style tended to adjust, up to a certain level, to the way the singers used their voices in the musical pieces alternating with those dialogues. That allowed them to stay quite close to their vocal comfort zone when delivering their conversations in a plausible manner. There are some interesting sounding examples illustrating this. Listen to the way Claudia Muzio, in 1935, reads Germonts letter in La Traviata’s 3rd act, followed by the aria “Addio del passato”. And compare that recording with, say, Barbara Frittoli’s from the year 2000. The aria’s singing styles are virtually the same; the ways the letter is read, on the other hand, differ considerably: Muzio is sounding pathetic, verging towards tearful. Whereas Frittoli sounds modest, close to our reality. So, to give yourself an idea of the sounding dialogue style in the original Médée, you should (mutatis mutandis) keep Claudia Muzio’s example in mind. This way, the transition from speaking to singing, and vice versa, becomes quite organic.
However, it was not this version that was being shown in New York, but the Italian Medea with Franz Lachner’s recitatives. They have been written in the most judicious way. It is easy to overlook them altogether. But that doesn’t mean there has been no tampering with Médée’s musical dramaturgy; in a way, the original balance has been disturbed. The spoken resting-points are lost, making it physically very demanding for the principals to keep up the tension. Furthermore, over 80% of the dramatic weight has been laid on the title-role. In a play (be it enhanced with music), this is an ancient tradition; in an (fully sung) opera this tends to become a problem. Something Richard Strauss experienced with his first version of Salome, where something similar is procured, resulting in a practically unfeasible piece that had to be revised thoroughly. Singing and speaking are simply fundamentally different disciplines, regarding stamina (keep in mind that Salome was based on the eponymous (French!) play by Oscar Wilde).
And there it is, my problem with this Medea. At the same time it explains why this opera (especially in the Italian version) is so seldom produced. The official reason is the very demanding title-role, but in my view the lack of dramaturgical balance is just as much to blame. That is why I said earlier on that I found this production to be “yes and no”. If the drama is to such a significant extent focused on one character, the production has to take that in account. David McVicar certainly did so, but he couldn’t avoid degrading the rest of the drama into a group of satellites around the vindictive Medea; hardly visible, to put matters with some exaggeration. On the other hand, Medea’s character struck me as somewhat unidimensional. It lacked evolution. The “woman scorned” crashing Jason’s party doesn’t grow into a mother reaching for the ultimate means to protect her children from him. In itself, the way her hair is used all evening as a mask seems to suggest that “crazy is crazy”.
In all, that doesn’t diminish Sondra Radvanovsky’s impressive performance in the title-role. Vocally as well as dramatically she keeps her ground heroically . But I would have liked to see some more differentiated acting. The rest of this Medea’s cast is doing fine; al be it that Michele Pertusi’s Creon lacks inspiration. Janai Brugger, Ekaterina Gubanova and Matthew Polenzani are doing a great job. Same goes for the secondary parts.
Cherubini’s very interesting music, displaying various jewels in scoring, has, in all, been well served by Riccardo Rizzi; not withstanding some stiffness in the timing. It took a while for the chorus and the orchestra to synchronise correctly.
Conclusion: this is absolutely an opera worth (re)discovering, if only for the quality of the title-role performance. Does it feel a bit ponderous now and then? Well, now you know why.
Attended the performance at The MET last Saturday afternoon. I was absolutely bowled over by Radvanovsky's performance. Shame on the record companies for ignoring her for the twelve years between her Verdi Recital and 'The Three Queens'. (I met her and her husband in Toronto after 'Anna Bolena' some years back. Lovely woman!)
As was pointed out by several critics when Callas' studio recording of 'Medea' was released, it is a pretty dull opera until Medea makes her first entrance. No amount of fine singing from Bridges, Polenzani, and Pertusi could enliven it. Radvanovsky was thrilling.
It occurred to me that some record company needs to record the Cherubini/Lachner version of 'Medea' in German, as Lachner conceived it. The two recordings of the original French version with spoken dialogue are, in varying degrees, inadequate.
I was sitting at the performance right in the middle of three rows of military cadets. One of them amusingly said about the opera "It is like 'The Parent Trap in Italian!". Of course, the parents in 'The Parent Trap' didn't kill their children!