Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Fall! Mauer! Fall!

Published today in the Wall Street Journal and at wsj.com:

The image “http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AK506_fallma_D_20091116175058.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

Berlin

A.J. Goldman

Last week saw the jubilation of the Festival of Freedom, this city’s official 20th-anniversary celebration of the collapse of the Berlin Wall, which divided East from West for 28 years. But anniversary-related exhibitions have been piling up around Berlin for months like the empty bottles of Pilsner at Alexanderplatz on a Saturday night. “FallMauerFall 61-89-09,” on view at the Ephraim-Palais museum, is a cut above the rest.

This ambitious show features works from three generations of artists from both East and West. Through paintings, sculptures, graphic design, performance art, photography, film and video, the exhibition provides a rich and often unexpected glimpse at how the Wall affected art in the two Germanys. The 300 works displayed in “FallMauerFall” show life on both sides of the barrier, and the joy and apprehension with which its fall was greeted.

The Ephraim-Palais, a replica of the rococo residence of the financier Vietel Heine Ephraim, is one of the most sumptuous buildings in Berlin. Modest in size, the Palais is part of a consortium of museums that deal with Berlin’s culture and history, and hardly the first place one would expect to find a groundbreaking art exhibit.

Dominik Bartmann, the show’s curator, is the exhibitions director for the Berlin City Museum. “We wanted to give another point of view, not just the jubilee, the happiness and the emotion,” he explained. “It makes no sense to show people coming to freedom without also showing the circumstances that led to that freedom,” he continued.

Read the rest here

Posted by A.J. Goldmann at 19:54:34 | Permalink | No Comments »

Friday, November 6, 2009

Comedy at SIN

Comedy at S.I.N.

Hoping to build on the strength of my initial appearances at S.I.N.’s Comedy Night performing Borscht-Belt style comedy (a video documents my first performance and is available only on Facebook), I once again took to the stage this past Thursday, merely three days after returning to Berlin. Boy, was it a tough crowd! Under the circumstances, I think it went off pretty well. The great thing about the recording that I’m posting below is how you can’t tell when I lose my place and need to glance down at my notes! That, and the girl who was taking audio is laughing especially loudly - which creates the illusion that the whole bar erupted in peals of delirious laughter. Would that that had been the case.

Before posting this, I’m required by U.S. federal law to warn all minors that the following program contains obscene language, so please tune in kiddies!

Me on stage (in August)

p.s. - Apologies to my dog Alfie, who is in fact very much alive.

Posted by A.J. Goldmann at 18:38:08 | Permalink | No Comments »

Tuesday, September 1, 2009

You’re always welcome at Bauhaus

From Today’s WSJ / wsj.com:

A.J. Goldmann

Berlin

Copious Gropius

Copious Gropius

No artistic movement of the 20th century has been more lauded, ­debated, misunderstood and maligned than the Bauhaus, the interdisciplinary workshop for modernity whose name has ­become practically synonymous with the stripped-down functionalism that the movement brought to architecture and ­design in the short-lived Weimar Republic.

Bauhaus turns 90 this year and Berlin is celebrating with “Bauhaus: A Conceptual Model.” The exhibit presents a comprehensive overview of the school in all its plurality and paradox. The exhibit is organized by Germany’s three main Bauhaus institutes, the ­Bauhaus Archive Berlin, the Stiftung Bauhaus Dessau and the Klassik Stiftung Weimar, with assistance from the ­Museum of Modern Art in New York, where a more modest version of the show will be mounted in November.

With nearly 1,000 ­objects—including models, studies, paintings, photographs and furniture—spread over the ground-floor galleries of this stately neoclassical building, the exhibit is the largest Bauhaus retrospective ever mounted and the first time that the three Bauhaus institutes, once separated by the Iron Curtain, have collaborated.

“There are different notions, or different views of the Bauhaus in the three different institutions,” says Annemarie ­Jaeggi, director of the Bauhaus Archive Berlin. “There isn’t one Bauhaus, but many Bauhäuser,” she adds, stressing the amount of transformation within the Bauhaus itself during the years of the school’s existence first in Weimar, then in Dessau, and ­finally (briefly) in Berlin.

“Bauhaus” is often tossed around as a catchall phrase for the constellation of modernism, design and architecture. ­Another misconception is that Bauhaus refers to a specific ­architectural style noted for its clarity and functionality; in fact, this was true of only one phase of the Bauhaus, a two-year ­period in Dessau under the ­directorship of Hannes Meyer. “Many people think that Bauhaus is a style, or a period, or that Bauhaus stands for modernism, for everything that was created between the two World Wars and maybe even afterwards,” Ms. Jaeggi said. But, she noted, Bauhaus was only a piece in the puzzle of European modernism.

Walter Gropius, who founded the Bauhaus in Weimar in 1919, was fueled by populist ideas. He spoke of Bauhaus’s ability to unite individuals “using the idea of new producing, working and living communities.” Responding to the “eclecticism” of contemporary trends in art, his goal was to merge the arts under the wing of architecture. In 1923, he pronounced a new ideal: “art and technology—the new unity.”

The bursts of creativity and exuberance are seen in the roles that Bauhaus masters and students took in Expressionism, Cubism, Constructivism and Dadaism. It is discernible in a list of the school’s teachers: Oskar Schlemmer, László Moholy-Nagy, Lyonel Feininger, Paul Klee, Wassily Kandinsky and Josef Albers were internationally recognized artists all, but the Bauhaus was for many of them just one stage in a long and varied career.

At the Bauhaus, Gropius had a tough time controlling all the egos he had gathered around him. The Bauhaus masters could often outdo Gropius in the loftiness of their proclamations. Johannes Itten, who structured and taught the school’s preliminary course, the Vorkurs, told his students “to awaken the personal life that is inherent in the form.” Klee, who later taught the course, stressed a study of nature to “freely design abstract shapes that go beyond the forcedly schematic and arrive at a new naturalness, the naturalness of the work.” The exhibit showcases teaching materials and exercises from the Vorkurs, ­including myriad studies in composition, contrast, rhythm, material and form. What all these classroom analyses show is the intense dissection and experimentation being pursued by both masters and disciples.

The exhibit progresses both chronologically and thematically, with different colors corresponding to periods and topics. Most of the time, displayed items are left to speak for themselves, without much in the way of accompanying text.

One of the most extraordinary items is Moholy-Nagy’s “Light Space Modulator” (1922-30), a mechanical apparatus that fuses light and color with movement inside of a blue and purple display. In his Vorkurs, Moholy-Nagy emphasized visual and tactile perception. The importance that he ­attached to light can be gleaned through his photography and filmmaking, and this kinetic sculpture was, in a sense, a logical outcome of his fascination.

The exhibition makes clear the double sense in which Bauhaus was a school: It was a new approach to art, comparable to other European modernist movements; but it was also an academy, a community, a social entity. The photos of everyday life at the Bauhäuser—students playing sports, attending parties, playing music and creating their art—affirm this rapturous description in Tom Wolfe’s otherwise critical book “From Bauhaus to Our House”: “It was more than a school; it was a commune, a spiritual movement, a radical approach to art in all its forms, a philosophical center comparable to the Garden of Epicurus.”

In the artistically and experimentally charged atmosphere of the Weimar Republic, the Bauhaus strove to be exemplary and exceptional. To this end, its members harnessed propaganda to spread their message. Many items on display deal with how the school ensured it was talked about. Its name became a seal of quality and a label. This branding is responsible for the enduring misunderstandings about Bauhaus, as well as its lasting successes.

Ninety years on, it’s tough to pin the Bauhaus down, and the exhibit shies away from raising critical questions about its guiding philosophy. Concentrating on the 14 years of the school’s existence, the ­exhibit doesn’t interest itself in the Bauhaus’s origins or reception: neither the parallel theories of art education in Germany during the Weimar Republic nor the world-wide spread of Bauhaus in the postwar era.

But even without these perspectives, the show brings the Bauhaus vividly to life as a movement in a constant state of flux between idealism and ­indecision.

Posted by A.J. Goldmann at 10:45:02 | Permalink | Comments (1) »

Monday, May 25, 2009

The Silver Screen

When I was fresh in Berlin last September (2007), I signed up for a gig as an extra in the film version of “The Reader.” I finally saw the film and spotted myself in the background during the scene at the beach. NOTE: the scene was supposed to be much longer than it is in the final cut of the film, as much to my dismay the deleted footage that we shot is not included in the DVD release. Here’s a screen capture from the scene as it exists. David Kross is sprinting across the beach and I’m strolling with a German girl (named Petra) to his left.


Posted by A.J. Goldmann at 13:20:57 | Permalink | No Comments »

Saturday, May 23, 2009

‘Springtime for Hitler’ in Berlin

From The image “http://online.wsj.com/img/wsj_print.gif” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

‘The Producers’ opens in Germany to nervous laughter

A.J. GOLDMANN

Berlin

The German transplant of Mel Brooks’s ridiculously popular 2001 Broadway musical, “The Producers,” based on his 1968 film about two Jewish con men who cook up a scheme to produce the world’s worst musical and defraud the investors, was anxiously awaited in the nation’s capital.

In the weeks leading up to opening night, newspapers here were full of headlines such as “Can Berlin Laugh at Hitler,” in reference to the show-stopping musical number “Springtime for Hitler.”

This certainly isn’t the first time that Germans have had the opportunity to laugh at Hitler—films ranging from Charlie Chaplin’s “The Great Dictator” (1940) to Swiss director Dani Levy’s 2007 comedy “Mein Führer” are not unknown to German audiences. The original movie version of “The Producers” was banned in Germany for nearly a decade but finally shown in 1976 at a Jewish film festival (with the title “Frühling für Hitler”), where it gained a cult status that it retains to this day.

 

Still, the sight of real Germans goose-stepping in Nazi uniforms and dancing in Swastika formation (that symbol is unconstitutional in Germany, though a dispensation is made for works of art) promised to be a different animal, especially for an audience snacking on blutwürst with sauerkraut at intermission. (In fact, most of the principle cast is Austrian—like the führer himself—as this production comes to Berlin by way of Vienna, where it recently ended a year-long run two months early due to poor ticket sales.)

In an interview with the Associated Press, Mr. Brooks said that he expects most of the Berlin audience—at least those born after the war—to understand the show. “I don’t think there’s a problem at all. . . . They’re hip, they’re bright and Berlin has always been a great theater town.” At the same time, he’s been insistent that “The Producers” is not a musical about Hitler or Nazism, but about the boundaries of taste.

It is a message that seems to have been lost on most people here.

At Sunday’s gala premiere, everyone seemed pumped to ridicule the führer. Politicians, actors and rock stars crowded the courtyard of the Admiralspalast, which was a sea of red and black as Nazi flags with pretzels and sausages in lieu of swastikas fluttered about. Ushers in traditional Bavarian dress handed out flags and armbands and scattered audience members sported World War II helmets and other regalia. Showtime was announced by an air-raid siren, which added to the giddy carnival atmosphere.

But inside, the theater held a palpable charge of nervous energy. Germans have been doing so much apologizing for the past 60 years that they need to justify how they could laugh at Hitler. This has been evident not only from the buzz surrounding the show, but also in a marketing campaign that alternately struck tones of irreverence and sobriety. No surprise then that the playbills carried a quote from Mr. Brooks about the importance of laughing at Hitler. “If you denounce such people with humor, they simply have no chance.” Having been granted permission to laugh, the audience eagerly awaited their moment of catharsis.

Before the curtain rose, the Club of German Film Journalists awarded Mr. Brooks the Ernst Lubitsch Prize for achievement in comedy, named for the Berlin-born filmmaker whose 1942 film “To Be or Not to Be” was among the first Nazi satires. The presenter reminded the audience that Hitler’s bunker was but a short distance away, and grouped Brooks together with Lubitsch and Chaplin as an artist who bravely harnessed humor to combat fascism. Huh? “The Producers” is many wonderful things, but a pointed satire of the Third Reich it is not. Seriously, there’s nothing deep about Nazi showgirls pirouetting or carrier pigeons doing the Hitler salute.

Judging by the reception opening night, I’m sorry to report that Mr. Brooks seems to have overestimated his audience. While his nothing-is-sacred breed of skewering everyone and everything—not only Nazis, but also Jews, homosexuals, the elderly and blondes— seems to have gone over well (Berlin’s openly gay mayor, Klaus Wowereit, was screeching in the box from which Hitler used to watch operettas), the fundamentally Jewish nature of so much of the humor does not resonate for a society that has been starved of Jewish culture for the past 70 years. Add to that the fact that “The Producers” is in large part a send-up of the whole Broadway musical tradition, an unfamiliar one to Germans. Many of the show’s best jokes were greeted with dead silence. It was somewhat like going to see the original Broadway production surrounded by clueless out-of-towners.

So far, the reviews have been mostly positive, although—predictably—very focused on the Nazi content. The Berlin tabloid BZ answered the question of whether Berlin should be allowed to laugh at Hitler with a resounding “yes.” “Not only should we laugh about Hitler. We must laugh about him. Especially in Berlin.” That’s a pretty strong imperative, but something tells me that Germans are historically sensitive enough to use it wisely. And with caution.

The gala audience certainly laughed loud and long during the “Springtime for Hitler” centerpiece. But despite this, the number of empty seats did not augur well for the remainder of the show’s two-month run.

—Mr. Goldmann writes about culture from Berlin and New York.

Posted by A.J. Goldmann at 11:26:02 | Permalink | No Comments »

Monday, May 11, 2009

Berlin Opera - 2009 - 2010

The three opera houses here made their upcoming seasons public in late April. As much as I’d like to believe that the opera scene is impervious to the worldwide financial fiasco, the scaled-down nature of the upcoming seasons gives pretty strong evidence to the contrary. Both the Staatsoper unter den Linden and the Deutsche Oper Berlin will be presenting four new productions, down from six and seven respectively this season. Ironically - or at least unexpectedly - the Komische Oper Berlin, which receives the fewest subsidies of the three houses, has seven premieres planned for the 2009 / 2010 season…an audacious move in this economic climate. Further to that, I just discovered on the KOB’s website that they’ll be upgrading the seats in the baroque auditorium to become Berlin’s first opera house with individual subtitles. Interested parties can purchase the old opera seats for 50 Euros a piece (discount available for bulk orders). Here’s your chance to own a piece of opera history! Contact  rausdamit@komische-oper-berlin.de to place an order…today!

The Staatsoper will be undergoing a thorough renovation in 2011 that’s set to last at least three years. This fact might explain why their final full season pre-renovation is so “light.”Among the premieres, Federico Tiezzi’s production of Simon Boccanegra with Placido Domingo in the title role seems the some promising, as well as Dale Duesing’s staging of Chabrier’s L’Etoile, conducted by Sir Simon Rattle and starring Magdalena Kozena.

Many productions from the 2008/2009 season will appear in rep. None of the revivals seems overly exciting, except a dream Tristan with Waltraud Meier, Peter Sieffert and Rene Pape.

At the DOB, what seems most intriguing at this point is Intendantin Kirsten Harms’ new production of Die Frau ohne Schatten, which arrives in late September with Manuela Uhl, Doris Soffel and Robert Brubaker, Johan Reuter and Eva Johansson. News of this production is especially welcome after the Met decided to scrap their FroSch from next season’s schedule for financial reasons.

I’m also excited for the new Rienzi by Philipp Stölzl that will be presented during the Richard Wagner Festival Weeks during the winter (Nov - Feb), which will feature all of Wagner’s 10 other biggies - including yet another revival of Götz Friedrich’s weathered production of Der Ring des Nibelungen.

I guess that leaves the KOB, whose season includes a new Rigoletto by Barrie Kosky and Aribert Riemann’s Lear in a production by Hans Neuenfels.

Below is a list of all the new productions at each house (concert perfs not included):

-Deutsche Oper Berlin-

Die Frau ohne Schatten - R. Strauss

Barbiere di Siviglia - Rossini

Rienzi - Wagner

Otello - Verdi

-Deutsche Staatsoper unter den Linden-

Simon Boccanegra - Verdi

Fledermaus - J. Strauss

Agrippina - Handel

L’etoile - Chabrier

- Komische Oper Berlin -

Rigoletto - Verdi

Der Rote Zora - Naske

Lear - Riemann

Don Pasquale - Donizetti

Fidelio  - Beethoven

Orlando - Handel

La Périchole - Offenbach

Posted by A.J. Goldmann at 11:37:03 | Permalink | Comments (4)

Sunday, May 3, 2009

Berlin Opera in Review: Strauss & Gounod

Here’s a quartet of reviews of from the current edition of Opera News. (www.operanews.com)

BERLIN — Ariadne auf Naxos, Deutsche Oper Berlin, 2/19/09


The image “http://www.rondomagazin.de/uploaded/Ariadne_WilfriedHoesl.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.
How about taking the most meta-opera out there and making it even more self-referential? That’s the approach director Robert Carsen took when his vision of Strauss’s Ariadne auf Naxos unfurled in February at Deutsche Oper Berlin (seen Feb. 19). This fascinating, frustrating, genre-bending work never seems quite certain about itself: the DOB transplant of this production, originally seen last year at the Bavarian State Opera in Munich, boasted a cast that far outshone the staging.

Lithuanian soprano Violeta Urmana fit nicely into the shoes of the strutting diva of the title role. This is a role she has sung previously at the Met. At DOB, her performance was distinguished by crystalline clarity and effortless volume. Urmana’s bright-hued timbre gave way to darker shades as the evening progressed, making for a richer, more involved performance, a highlight of which was a full-throttle account of the gently ebbing “Es gibt ein Reich.”

Ruxandra Donose made an even stronger impression as the impetuous Composer, singing with undeniable ardor, an attractively thick texture and a velvety low range, as in her compelling account of “Sein wir wieder gut.” The Zerbinetta of Jane Archibald was alternately reverent and feisty, as in her quasi-love duet with the Composer. And even if the massive orchestral force occasionally drowned her out, she tore through her vocally punishing role with obvious relish and assurance, especially in the extensive coloratura writing. She nearly stole the show with her “Grossmächtige Prinzessin,” which was here elaborately choreographed with various paramours popping out of pianos that glided comically across the stage.

As in most Strauss, the men of Ariadne play a decidedly supporting role. That said, Roberto Saccà was indeed godlike as Bacchus, singing with Italianate grace (and a pinch of schmaltz) that made the opera’s close more fitting and dramatically convincing. Met veteran Lenus Carlson was in fine form as the levelheaded Music Teacher. And baritone Simon Pauly did solid work as Harlequin, particularly in the tuneful “Lieben, Hassen, Hoffen, Zagen.”

Carsen, one of Europe’s busiest directors, is probably best known to U.S. audiences for his striking Met production of Eugene Onegin. In this Ariadne, he tried so constantly to break through the fourth wall that most of his attempts at abstraction ended up seeming bland.

The house lights stayed on for the better part of the Prologue, and various characters walked through the audience to make their entrances. The production, which featured sets by Peter Pabst and costumes by Falk Bauer, switched awkwardly between elegance and absurdity, an obvious mirror of the tension in the score between opera seria and commedia dell’arte. The self-referential elements — the large mirrors that reflected the audience, the exposed lighting and the completely bare stage that the Composer walked onto at the end of the opera, to be greeted by the applause of the cast — quickly grew tiresome. One bright spot was Marco Santi’s smart and edgy choreography, which livened things immeasurably, especially in the otherwise static Act II.

The evening’s maestro, Jacques Lacombe, had difficulty giving shape to the sinewy, often manic Prologue, the backstage drama that occupies the work’s first half. The directorial shenanigans did much to reinforce an impression of general havoc onstage and in the pit. Lacombe took much firmer command of his musicians with the opera within an opera, starting with a delicate account of the tortuous G-minor overture and not letting up until the glittering apotheosis of the closing bars.

BERLIN — Salome, Deutsche Oper Berlin, 2/1/09


The image “http://www.rondomagazin.de/uploaded/Salome04_Monika-Rittershaus.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.
Richard Strauss’s Salome is an opera as emotionally unhinged as it is daringly modern. So one was interested to see what Achim Freyer, the controversial visionary behind Los Angeles Opera’s new production of the Ring cycle, would do to Strauss’s debauched heroine when Deutsche Oper Berlin revived his 2003 production in early February. The production images available on the company’s website promised that the evening would have its share of strangeness, and they probably had something to do with the poor attendance (seen Feb. 1).

I too had my reservations about what a Freyer Salome would look like, especially after seeing his recent Eugene Onegin at the Staatsoper Unter den Linden — a visually dazzling production that quickly ran out of ideas. With Salome, I was afraid that Freyer’s extreme distancing techniques would preclude genuine involvement in the relentless drama of the music. But it was precisely this quality about Salome that enabled Freyer’s spin to work. The high drama and breathless pace of a score tailored to suit a preexisting play were well served by this oddball, kooky production. With a staging concerned more with interpretation than with mere illustration, this Salome did not waste time over details of decor —the color of the heroine’s veils, the verisimilitude of the severed head — and thus spoke for itself.

Freyer’s Salome left the music exposed and pure, placing more demands than usual on the soprano who dares to take on this killer role. For this revival, the ravishing Manuela Uhl took up the challenge. Uhl — who obviously had no intention of being erased by the abstract, cartoonish sensibilities of this revival — created a Salome who was raw, energetic and passionate. She has an exciting, powerful voice and enough stamina to make it to the end of this punishing role. Her singing was fresh and convincing, if not always the picture of accuracy. Uhl ducked some high notes and decided to forgo some of the coloratura ornamentation, but her biggest problems were a weak low range — she often resorted to speaking — and exposed passaggio. She also pounced on her lines with an eagerness that, though not always in synch with the music, made for thrilling drama. Despite the shortcomings of her performance, the bulk of Strauss’s searing music sounded wondrous and convincing in her mouth, and aside from rough patches, her voice rang out with incredible volume and clarity from start to finish.

Uhl was supported by highly capable colleagues. Foremost among them was American baritone Alan Titus, the intense, booming Jochanaan. Chris Merritt, a lyric tenor with a background in Rossini operas, made an unexpectedly great Herodes, bringing out his character’s buffoonery and perversion with occasional Italianate embellishments. As his cutthroat wife Herodias, Hanna Schwarz sang like an avenging fury. Clemens Bieber — a DOB ensemble member — was a sympathetic and convincing Narraboth, declaiming his soaring, urgent lines with both finesse and an appealing ruggedness. The remaining roles were perfectly cast, from the Page of Julia Benzinger on down to the two Nazarenes.

The staging was as baffling as it was entrancing. The set appeared to have materialized out of a David Lynch dream sequence and resembled some kind of industrial carnival funhouse, with its numbered yellow factory doors and circus-like stage area. Much of the acting consisted of heightened, repeated gestures that took on a ritualistic aspect. This was complemented by the extremely clownish Expressionist makeup. The costumes were likewise irreverent and colorful, consisting of hand-drawn pinstriped suits and incorporating a childish variety of props, such as balloons for breasts, funnels and sand buckets for hats. One of the best touches was to number each of the Jews “1″ through “5.” All this added a magical, nursery-like feel to the narrative. The one misstep was an underwhelming dance of the seven veils, which was so confused and pedestrian that one wondered whether Freyer meant it as a comment on the evidently weaker quality of that music in comparison to the rest of the score.

At the helm of the massive orchestral force was Ulf Schirmer, whose account of the score mounted steadily in intensity, from the opening clarinet scale to the bone-crushing chords that describe Salome’s execution. In between, he was sensitive to the profusion of motifs and the score’s shimmering, exotic detail.

IN REVIEW
BERLIN — Der Rosenkavalier, Staatsoper Unter den Linden, 2/21/09

The image “http://data.heimat.de/culturebase/media/pics/4/b/d/6/7/ec_67268_4bd672685957f066f07c1fdc55f92d6d.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.


With an extensive Strauss celebration underway at Deutsche Oper Berlin, Staatsoper unter den Linden got in on the action in February with a sumptuously sung revival of Nicolas Brieger’s production of Der Rosenkavalier, conducted by Asher Fisch (seen Feb. 21).

The most compelling reason to see this revival was the role debut of Magdalena Kožená as Octavian. This is a character that fits the Czech mezzo like a glove: her performance was an all-around revelation. She delivered her opening lines, “Wie du warst, wie du bist!” in soft, luminous notes of heartbreaking beauty. She matched the impassioned horns effortlessly, which is no small feat. Her richly textured voice communicated a dramatic range from ardor to impetuousness to despair and devotion. Every phrase was carefully thought out, with an exciting deployment of rubato providing added force to the fluency of her singing, which was free of any breaks or gasps for air. This revival also capitalized on the androgynous aspect of Kožená’s beauty, which only added to the completeness of the incarnation.

Every bit as assured was the Marschallin of Angela Denoke, whose tragically noble performance reminded us that Princess Marie Thérèse is the most complex character in the opera. Denoke was here both more aristocratic and more nuanced than in her 2005 Rosenkavalier appearances at the Met, which marked her debut with that company. A pitch-perfect companion to Kozená, Denoke wavered between the earthy and the ethereal, placing equal value on the mellifluous and dramatic aspects of her performance. Her full yet silky voice contained both laughter and repressed sorrow.

Bass Peter Rose, another Met veteran, was vocally persuasive and perversely charming as Baron Ochs. He switched effortlessly among the duets, waltzes and arioso that this difficult character is required to pull off. All in all, he was so rudely charming that he threatened to tip the opera in his favor.

Sylvia Schwartz suffered from a problem common to most Sophies — being upstaged by the titanic forces of her costars. Her light, pretty voice was far from slight, but it was still obscured in her Act II duet with Octavian and in the transcendent Act III trio.

The supporting roles were judiciously cast, with Paul O’Neill making a memorable impression as the Italian Tenor. Curiously, O’Neill came out in a wheelchair to sing “Di rigori armato” with requisite lyricism and fervor that won him peals of spontaneous applause.

The audience was less kind to conductor Asher Fisch, who took his bow amid persistent boos. Apparently, Berlin felt cheated by a performance that consciously sacrificed much of the work’s Viennese elegance for a courser, darker interpretation. From the weighty, muscular tempo of the opening bars and the lusty strings and winds somewhat obscured by the horns, it was clear that Fisch was intent on taking things in a different direction.

Brieger’s elegant production matched the refinement and taste on display in the singing. The direct, striking design brought to mind both Ruth Berghaus and Gilbert Defloe. The versatile horseshoe-shaped set morphed ingeniously from the decaying elegance of the Marschallin’s bedroom to the bourgeois trappings of the Faninal residence to the seedy inn of the closing act. The only false note the production struck was in the jumbled chaos of the Baron’s aborted seduction.

A. J. GOLDMANN

IN REVIEW
BERLIN — Faust, Staatsoper Unter den Linden, 2/22/09


The image “http://www.klassikinfo.de/typo3temp/pics/59362e5319.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

I am forever being told by veteran opera-lovers, “They don’t sing like they used to.” Perhaps this explains why certain works in the repertoire have lost their places of prominence or have been eliminated altogether: we simply no longer have the voices required to do them justice. Gounod’s Faust is hardly an obscure work, but the rate at which it is staged today is paltry when compared to the popularity it enjoyed before World War II. So it was thrilling (and transporting) to see a Faust at the Berlin Staatsoper unter den Linden so expertly sung that one understood the seductive spell it cast over audiences in the nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries (seen Feb. 22).

For its new production, the Staatsoper enlisted the talents of superb singers whose bravura performances cut through the dimmer inspirations of director Karsten Wiegand’s uneven staging.

Before the curtain went up, an announcement was made that two cast members, Charles Castronovo, the Faust, and Roman Trekel, the Valentin, would be singing despite colds. If anything, this inauspicious news only made the ensuing three and a half hours more impressive and thrilling. Castronovo, a New York-born lyric tenor, was somewhat throaty in the opening scene, with hesitant low notes. He was a bit off in the reprise of “A moi les plaisirs” with the devil, but he warmed up quickly. Before long, he was singing with heroic and darkly lacquered tones. He gasped certain phrases out suspensefully and projected others with an otherworldly quiver.

The sublime Russian soprano Marina Poplavskaya, best known to New York audiences for her performance as Natasha in the 2007 Met revival of Prokofiev’s War and Peace, was cast in the punishing role of Marguerite: she sang with fierce determination and unrelenting brazenness. It was a sensational performance, but one also worried about the toll that singing like that might take on the young soprano’s voice. She delivered an expressive and bouncy “Il était un roi de Thule” in a clear, restrained manner, then made a fluid transition to a wildly coquettish “Je ris de me voir si belle,” with delicious coloratura technique and an abundance of expressive muscle. It was but one climax in a performance with too many to highlights to enumerate.

As Méphistophélès, Réne Pape was — forgive the sacrilegious locution — absolutely godlike. He snickered and jeered though this wonderfully wicked role and let his character’s evil seep through most effectively in the quieter moments. His voice sounded effortlessly big, smoothly seductive and appropriately serpentine.

Despite his cold, Trekel struck the right tone as Valentin, his complex, robust voice communicating his character’s brotherly concern — as in his deeply felt “Avant de quitter ces lieux” — but also encompassing the rage and venom of Act IV. Silvia de la Muela sang Siébel with appropriate ardor and conviction.

Wiegand, a young German stage director who made his debut at the Staatsoper in 2006 with Maria Stuarda, provided an infuriatingly garish and amateurish Act I, setting the action at a raucous casino/house party. The noisy thrashing around brought to mind the rave that Calixto Bieito choreographed for his atrocious 2006 production of Wozzeck in Barcelona.

The casino set was moved away for Act II, which unfolded on a bare stage surrounded by silver-leafed walls — minimal yet all-around exquisite setting for this act that made the work uncommonly fluid by eliminating the need for clunky transitions between various set pieces. During Marguerite’s ascension, the walls lifted majestically to reveal the chorus seated at a heavenly banquet attired in tuxedos and cocktail dresses.

The stomach-churning touches of Wiegand’s production — Marguerite dashed her newborn’s brains against the wall and, in the end, slashed her own throat with a brooch — provided a jolting dose of realism to the otherwise abstract staging.

The version used for this production made the traditional cuts of the ballet and the Walpurgisnacht scene but included sporadic dialogue. Alain Altinoglu’s conducting was sweeping and sensitive. He made some daring decisions, slowing down to an almost dangerous level during the more introspective arias and favoring an all-around expansive approach that added an extra twenty minutes to the show’s running time. But then again, it’s hard to have too much of a good thing.

Posted by A.J. Goldmann at 14:20:37 | Permalink | No Comments »

On the German Response to Jonathan Littell’s “The Kindly Ones”

Published in the May / June issue of Moment Magazine.
(http://www.momentmag.com/Exclusive/2009/2009-06/200906-Books-German_Response_Kindly_Ones.html)

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_YhrLAYLQ8So/SaYUp_yOKVI/AAAAAAAAIF4/aney2ce570Q/s400/The+Kindly+Ones.jpg

BERLIN, GERMANY — In Germany, the memory of the Holocaust is carefully guarded. From Berlin’s new memorial commemorating the gay victims of National Socialism to the wax sculpture of Hitler on display in the local Madame Tussaud’s, debate surrounds everything where remembrance and representation of the Shoah are concerned. So it should come as no surprise that the recent publication in Germany of Jonathan Littell’s The Kindly Ones sparked an unprecedented blizzard of controversy.

The 1,000-page fictional memoir of a high-ranking SS officer, Maximilien Aue, The Kindly Ones was already a classic in France when it arrived in Germany last February. It had won both the 2006 Prix Goncourt and the Grand Prix du Roman—France’s most prestigious literary awards—and had been compared to masterpieces like War and Peace, Vassily Grossman’s Life and Fate, and even the Greek Oresteia. German critics, however, were less moved, competing to write the most scathing response.

In a review of the original French edition in 2006, Michael Mönninger, Paris correspondent for the influential German weekly Die Zeit, called Littell “a pornographer of violence.” This year, Iris Radisch, a literary editor at the same paper, excoriated the author for universalizing the crime of the Holocaust while individualizing the Nazi at the book’s center. “Why should we…read the work of an idiot who writes terribly, is saddled with sexual perversions, and who is disposed to elitist racial ideology and an ancient belief in destiny?” she wrote. “The nocturnal plants of French academic discourse haven’t done anything to contribute to the solution of the painful question: what made our grandfathers into murderers?”

The writing is impressive, confesses Micha Brumlik, a professor of education at the University of Frankfurt and a former director of the Fritz Bauer Institute for Holocaust Studies. But it “gives an absolutely wrong account about the Shoah.” The book portrays the Nazis as “sick” and “perverted” when “the contrary is the case. As we know, they were very normal people—neither sadistic nor masochistic.”

Brumlik attributes The Kindly Ones’ success in France to a fixation with evil that has persisted in French literature from the days of Baudelaire, the 19th century poet, to the present. Others argue that its extraordinary reception betrays the lack of French public awareness of the Holocaust. “The Holocaust as a panopticon of folly?” the social psychologist Harald Welzer wrote in Die Zeit. “Debate in this country progressed beyond this point long ago,” he scoffed. “Littell is way behind in his perpetrator research,” the historian Christoph Jahr remarked in Neue Zürcher Zeitung.

One of the novel’s few German defenders is Klaus Theweleit, a cultural analyst and the author of a two-volume tome entitled Male Fantasies. In a recent issue of New German Critique, a scholarly journal published by Duke University, he defends precisely those aspects of the novel that many found repellent. The pulp and kitsch, he claims, are not only intentional but necessary. Littell, he reasons, presents Aue not as a “barbarian but forever a human being. Man himself is what is monstrous,” he writes. “Littell’s achievement is not to disburden the Germans but to potentially burden us all.”

Writing in Welt am Sonntag, Bettina Bode offered a more introspective interpretation. “Littell was looking for a niche in the market and found it and then he presented the unsuspecting French with a horror novel about World War II with which he is now making millions. Littell won’t find the Germans so gullible,” she writes. “We Germans prefer to explain the Nazi period ourselves.”

Posted by A.J. Goldmann at 14:06:51 | Permalink | No Comments »

Sunday, April 26, 2009

Long Night of Opera and Theater

In a city that seems to have little use for realistic thinking, the first ever “Long Night of Opera and Theater”(Lange Nacht der Opern und Theater) that sprawled across the capital between the hours of 7 p.m. and 1 a.m. last night typified the manic energy that drives Berlin’s brilliant cultural scene.

In all 51 institutions participated in the marathon-like event, presenting full and truncated programs that ranged from African drumming to Verdi and Mozart to cabaret to political satire to clubbing.

(Below: A map of participating venues and how to get there)

Tickets for the evening were a meager 15 Euros, which included transportation via a fleet of shuttle buses that zipped from north to south and east to west - and were consistantly packed all evening long.

I began my evening at the Staatsoper unter den Linden (see image below), where crowds a thousand strong were waiting to see a program of excerpts from the Magic Flute (Zauberflöte) that was performed on the hour. The crowds and queues I encountered at the Staatsoper were harbingers of things to come: the staggering turn-out made this particular “Long Night” a logistical nightmare.

By dint of pure luck, I managed to talk my way into the first tier of the theater, where I stood and enjoyed an obstructed view of the performance - though, in truth, I was more interested in observing the enthusiastic audience and the thunderous applause they gave to Papageno and the Queen of the Night.

Afterwards, I walked to the nearby Komische Oper, where that evening’s performance of Traviata was being projected outside for the benefit of a crowd fressing themselves with Bratwurst and pretzels in the soothing spring evening.


The mob in front of the KOB was even more impressive than at the Staatsoper. No one seemed to have much of an idea of what was in store for them. This turned out to be a selection of Verdi marches and arias performed in the foyer by a “Salon Orchestra” and KOB ensemble members.

The salon orchestra “Illusion” plays a light Verdi medley


Soprano Erika Roos sings “Merche diletta amiche”from I Vespri Siciliani

Meanwhile, in the baroque opera house itself, a baffling DJ set / lightshow was taking place. Most seemed as confused as I was by DJ Jürgen Grözinger, who was spinning opera LPs while drenched in a blue light.

After an ill-fated attempt at seeing a Bulgakov play at the Maxim-Gorki theater, I sallied forth to the Admiralspalast for a preview of the German version of Mel Brooks’ musical “The Producers,” which makes its début at that theater in mid-May.

It is forbidden by German law to display Nazi insignias anywhere outside of an educational or dramatic setting. Unfortunately, there’s no dispensation for satire, which means no swastika armbands or dancing in formation during the classic “Springtime for Hitler” number. In place of swastikas the actors wear red-black-and-white armbands with pretzels on them.

(Below: girls in the theater lobby in stereotypical German dress promote “The Producers”)

The program at the Admiralspalast kicked off with an effectively schmaltzy band that performed a “Berlin Revue” that included a suitably nostalgic and mushy performance of “Du gehst durch all meine Träume.”

1941’s “Du gehst durch all meine Träume”at the Admiralspalast

The principle cast members of “The Producers” were introduced and performed some scenes of dialogue and music from the show. Cornelius Obonya uncannily channeled Nathan Lane as Max Bialystock. Andreas Bieber made a less winning impression with his annoyingly whiny Leo Bloom. Herbert Steinböck made Franz Liebkin into a lovable (psychotic) dope and had the audience in stiches during some Chaplinesque double talk (Hear audio excerpt below). And Bettina Mönch was a delightful ditz as the Swedish bombshell Ulla.

Audio except of a scene from the Berlin production of”The Producers”

Ulla (Bettina Mönch) sings “When You’ve Got It, Flaunt It”

Max (Cornelius Obonya) and Leo (Andreas Bieber) sing “We Can Do It”

Next door to the Admiralspalast is the Kabaret Distel, which performs political satire (get those images of Joel Grey out of your head). On exiting the Producers preview, I somehow got swept into the Distel’s performance of “Jenseits von Angela” (a none-too-clever pun on the German title of Isaak Dinesen’s memoir), which - judging from the audience’s reactions - must have been wickedly funny, though I understood precious little aside from easy puns and slapstick.

(Below: The Distel Kabaret)

At the beginning of the evening, six hours had sounded to me far too short a time period to enjoy such a cultural smörgåsbord (those accent marks are courtesy of spell check, not me!). With the evening nearly at an end (it was close to one a.m.) I was starting to get exhausted. Still, I felt I should milk the evening for all it was worth and, so, found myself at 12:50 riding the last shuttle bus #5 into Tiergarten - Berlin’s central park - to the famed Tipi der Zelt. Tipi is a throwback to the good old days of Berlin nightclub culture. In a city that is very suspect of nostalgia, the roaring 20s is practically the only epoch of the 20th century that people continue to romanticize. (Is there really much else to be proud of?)

I arrived just in time to catch the final number in a colorful and campy drag show: an irreverent and batty conclusion to my very full evening.

(Below: drag show at Tipi der Zelt)

Posted by A.J. Goldmann at 16:27:54 | Permalink | No Comments »

Friday, April 17, 2009

A History of Israeli Cinema

Originally published in the online edition of The Forward (at http://www.forward.com/articles/104872/):

One of the few surprises of this year’s Academy Awards ceremony was the snub of Ari Folman’s “Waltz With Bashir,” the animated film about the First Lebanon War that seemed poised to win Israel its first ever statuette for best foreign film. Instead, the Oscar went unexpectedly (some might say inexplicably) to the Japanese film “Departures.”

But despite the Academy’s mysterious selection process, the widespread critical acclaim of “Waltz With Bashir” shows that Israeli cinema is a force to be reckoned with. Both “Bashir” and Joseph Cedar’s “Beaufort” — which snagged an Oscar nod in 2008 — represent the wider prominence of Israeli cinema on the international film scene. Historically neglected, Israeli cinema has seen a renaissance in the past decade, with Israeli films cropping up regularly on the festival circuit, including five at the current Tribeca Film Festival.

Now seems like a good time for a critical re-evaluation of this often neglected national cinema. Enter French-Israeli filmmaker Raphael Nadjari, whose 210-minute-long documentary “A History of Israeli Cinema” enjoyed its world premiere at the 59th International Berlin Film Festival in early February. Astonishingly, the sold-out audience was deterred neither by the running time nor that the film dealt with cinematic artifacts largely unknown outside Israel.

Nadjari, whose 2007 film “Tehilim” screened in competition at the Cannes Film Festival, divides “A History of Israeli Cinema” into two parts. The first spans the years 1933 to1978, starting with the earliest films made by European Jews in Palestine during the British Mandate. The second part covers the years 1978 to 2005 and examines the wave of films dealing of political issues and the trend toward a more personal approach to cinema.

Nadjari tells the story through interviews with film professionals, critics and intellectuals — including Amos Gitai, Joseph Ceder, Avi Mograbi, Yehuda Ne’eman, Menachem Golan, Moshe Ivgy and Zeev Revach — and extensive use of film clips, which are woven into a kinetic and engaging documentary that invites the audience to share in the process of discovery.

What makes “A History of Israeli Cinema” so successful is the engagement that Nadjari achieves though an almost Talmudic dialectical process — the way that the confluence of voices and visual quotations often refer back to and reflect each other. In the film, Nadjari eschews narration and remains hidden behind his sources. In person, however, he is eminently talkative.

Nadjari arrives late for our meeting, dressed casually in black. His sympathetic face is set off by a short coif, and light beard and rectangular black-rimmed eyeglasses. Nadjari carefully measures his words and speaks in eloquent — if not always grammatically flawless — English with lilting accents of French and Hebrew.

Nadjari was hardly an expert on the subject of Israeli cinema when the French TV channel ARTE approached him about making the film. And he never imagined that the finished product would end up running three-and-a-half hours. As Nadjari plunged into a full exploration, the format of his film changed. “It became the story of our gaze, our look on things, he said. You share in the development of our own consciousness.”

From the beginning, Nadjari wanted his film to be analytic. “The film is not a showcase. To me, the Israeli cinema is like an invitation to think about the function of cinema,” he explained. “Should cinema continue to raise all the questions of man, of woman, social, ethical, ethnical, religious, non-religious? It’s amazing to see the high quality of debate in a cinema, which is much more interesting because it is kind of the way our imagination works, and is sometimes not quite conscious.” One walks away from Nadjari’s film amazed that Israeli cinema is such an open forum for multiple viewpoints and perspectives, given the country’s never-ending religious, ethical and geopolitical conflicts.

While we never get to hear Nadjari’s opinion explicitly in his film, his guidance is evident in the care with which he weaves together interviews and archival footage. He sees himself as mostly glossing the terms of the debate and attempting a definition. “Probably I’m trying to make a pshat,” he said, referring to a method that Bible scholars use to understand the text. “Trying to define things is trying to disambiguate and to show the complexity.”

In the course of the film, filmmakers and scholars sit around, debating terms and fighting to reinvent definitions. “Whatever is in motion, whatever doesn’t have a form, is always reinventing itself. That’s what’s unique about it.” Nadjari said: “These films are crazy. They are leftovers of fictions that can’t negotiate to build a national history. It’s so interesting to see how deconstructive all this is. Like every time you want to have an idea, it gets deconstructed. Next time you have an idea, it goes in debate.” This constant flux of a national art form that continually struggles to find its identity makes Nadjari’s subject elusive. In keeping with this sentiment, Nadjari urges that his film is not the definitive history of Israeli cinema: “To me, this film is a step in the research.”

Nadjari says that the technical aspects of Israeli filmmaking have often overshadowed the issues the films themselves raised. “We’re talking about the build-up of a conscience,” the filmmaker continued, “on a place that struggles to find its ethic. So it’s really interesting in the sense that we see a cinematography that some people could call boring — but in fact they didn’t see it, because people, when they go to films, are obsessed with efficiency.” He compares Uri Zohar’s classic “Hole in the Moon” to the work of French film pioneer George Méliès, a director whose appeal exceeds the craft of his films: “It’s not well written, it’s not well said. But it’s so beautiful.”

The historical fact that Israel missed out on the chance to pioneer the art of film is crucial for Nadjari, who says that Israeli cinema was aware from the first that it could not be original. But this late start was far from a disadvantage; it just created new opportunities. “If Israeli cinema could not be original, it tried to become exemplary. And if it couldn’t be exemplary, so it tried to become unique. And if it wasn’t able to be unique, then it tried to expose contradictions,” he explains that the insecurity and restlessness of Israeli film makes it an elusive subject for documenting. “It will always go out of your hand because it has no form and in the end - it will always be original. That’s the funny thing; in the end it will always be exemplary.”

Where does Nadjari sees Israeli cinema heading in the future? “What it clear to me,” he said, “is that Israeli cinema will start again. And in that sense, Israeli cinema will take an extremely different position, contradict completely everything. Israeli cinema was only interesting when it decided to propose a dialectical access to its meaning, in the sense that each filmmaker would enter in the eternal questions of ‘What are we? What should we be? Where are we heading to? Where are we coming from? What is our identity? What is our hope? What is our despair?’” Nadjari explains that the debate of the “function” of Israeli cinema encompasses philosophy, entertainment, nation-building and propaganda.

Nadjari interprets the recent Oscar excitement surrounding “Waltz With Bashir” as illustrating the point. “What does it mean?” he asked rhetorically. “That it’s the definitive achievement of Israeli cinema? But it cannot be this.” This is but another facet of Israeli cinema that makes it so fascinating to observe, this constant rush to produce the definitive statement. “That’s what I like — because these films are each time a breakthrough. Breakthrough after breakthrough.”

Posted by A.J. Goldmann at 05:58:22 | Permalink | No Comments »