On April 17 the Dutch daily paper Trouw published a hagiographic interview met Lotte de Beer (interview with Lotte de Beer) about the Aïda she directed in Paris. Interviewer Peter de Lint lets her ramble on about her well-known fashionable views on opera, loudly applauded by People of Now, who are also full of diversity, involvement etc. in the field of opera, but who have no idea about art history.
Peter de Lint slavishly picks up De Beers’ embarrassing stream of words, without raising a single critical eyebrow. That is why we are lightly trimming a few passages here.
You can have any review automatically translated. Click the Google Translate button (“Vertalen”), which can be found at the top right of the page. In the Contact Page, the button is in the right column. Select your language at the upper left.
As a preamble and reminder: the opera Aïda was first performed in 1871 and is about a war between Egypt and Ethiopia, about 1000 years before Christ, and about some exciting personal entanglements that take place during that war, so also 1000 before Christ. Hold on to that for a moment.
According to Lotte de Beer the topics covered are: Colonialism (is not what the opera is about), racism (is not what the opera is about at all), looting art (is not what the opera is about), sexism (had not been invented yet, nor 1000 B.C. nor in 1871).
Here, of course, De Lint should have intervened immediately. “Something cool to drink?” could have playfully pointed Ms. De Beer in the direction of the right track.
It was not to be.
Ms. De Beer: “Aïda is a colonial story, a Western take on Orientalism, made in times when art was looted from Egypt to be exhibited in European museums.” Ms. De Beer errs: it is a war between two independent states, no colony is involved. The “Western view of Orientalism” is a linguistic slip, because “Orientalism” already implies the Western view, and that the opera would have been written at the time of art theft from Egypt has nothing to do with the subject of the opera. So, wrong, wrong and wrong.
According to Ms. De Beer, Aïda is a problematic title, one of the problematic titles (?) that have shaped us culturally. “I consider it a privilege to be allowed to interpret that cultural history,” she says. Interpreting cultural history is, of course, free to everyone. It is therefore not a privilege, but a right. Just as Virus Madness is entitled to its interpretations. However, De Beer’s cultural interpration should definitely not have besmirched Verdi’s opera Aída. Nothing was gained, only a lot was lost.
De Beer: “I would have liked to have had a black singer for Aida, simply because they get fewer opportunities.” Get less opportunities from whom? Figures? Proofs? And: “(…) when it turned out that four white singers had been cast for the title role, I did hesitate for a moment.” Associations with 9/11 come to mind! De Beer had hesitated for a moment! A shiver went through all of operaland!
But it gets worse: “I couldn’t avoid the theme of ‘race’ in this opera. (There is no such theme. OG) Then I contacted the black, Ethiopian artist Virginia Chihota. (…) Only after I had Chihota on board did I sign the contract in Paris.” This reasoning is bizarre and seemingly inextricable. It is something like the Lille football player who signed a contract with Paris St. Germain, but only after he had a Paris milkman “on board.”
Then Ms. De Beer muses a bit further. The Suez Canal was, “like the European art form opera, also a colonial instrument”. We note: opera and Suez Canal, colonial instruments. Check! About the romance in Aïda: “You have to tell that humane story, but the frame has to be about the piece itself, about the history of this opera. And so with me the opera plays in a kind of Tropenmuseum, with puppeteers [ oh no! not them again!] and with singers in nineteenth-century costumes.”
We are still studying “the frame must be about the play itself” and “the opera is therefore playing in a kind of Tropenmuseum.” Here Ms De Beer. seems to be erring: a glance at the libretto reveals that the opera is set in the time of the pharaohs.
Finally, as an encore, a very nice one. Read carefully: “For the famous triumphal march, which celebrates the victory of the Egyptians over the Ethiopians, Verdi has, in my opinion, deliberately created pompous, kitschy music.”
So, we can chew on that for a while. Verdi making kitschy music on purpose. Ms. De Beer should understand that some supporting evidence would be welcome.
The march “Gloria all´Egitto”, beginning of the 2nd act, also called the Triumphal March, is the best known melody from Aïda. Would Verdi really want to open the second act kitschy? “Gloria all ‘Egitto”, is a moment of Egyptian self-glorification. The title “Gloria all ‘Egitto” already sneakily hints at that. This march makes an intended overwhelming impression, and that may make some people uncomfortable. Contemporaries did not have that problem. But what do THEY know? In 1872, the important music critic Filippo Filippi praised the Triumphal March in plain terms: “Verdi has never made anything grander or more beautiful” [mai nulla di più grandioso, di più bello]. Filippi didn’t realize it was kitsch.
To make the trumpet part sound to his liking, Verdi had given himself quite a bit of effort. Verdi always did his best to make everything in his operas as authentic as possible. Recreating the ancient Egyptian trumpet for the Triumphal March was no easy task. There were some images of this trumpet to be found in the Louvre, but that was about it. Verdi commissioned musical instrument maker Giuseppe Pelitti to recreate these famous trumpets. The result, six unbowed trumpets, was not very pleasing to the ear. Verdi was certainly not a “joker” like Poulenc, and we are not aware of any sources that say he deliberately wrote “kitschy” music. It is possible, of course, but that would be a secret between Giuseppe Verdi and Ms. De Beer.
Finally, one more bon mot from Ms. De Beer: “Opera is more than a bunch of singers singing extremely beautifully.” LOL. That’s one in a line of clichés like “opera is not a museum,” “opera is more than just pretty pictures,” “opera has to be understood by modern people with modern means,” and such in the thousands of variants that People of Today have managed to produce.
In our opinion, Ms. De Beer had better stick to her shitting horses in Il barbiere di Siviglia.
[…] Lotte de Beer, après avoir placé les Pêcheurs de perles dans un jeu télévisé exotique, s’empare de la tragédie égyptienne de Verdi pour plonger le spectateur dans un musée mêlant curiosités ethnologiques et tableaux historiques. Le résultat dans ce type de concept est toujours identique : la volonté a priori stimulante de « repenser notre rapport aux productions esthétiques du passé et du présent » se heurte à nos habitudes confortables (ce peut être salutaire), plus gravement à l’œuvre. […]
[…] nein. Es sollte anders kommen. Man engagierte als Regisseurin Lotte de Beer, die frischgebackene künftige Intendantin der Wiener Volksoper. Dass De Beer trotz ihrer […]
Nobody seems to care about the responsibility of the opera directors who allow such bullshit into their opera house and pay the director lavishly for it with the taxpayers’ money.
The responsibility of the singers is not mentioned either, while they prostitute themselves and their art to the senseless whims of directors. When will they revolt?
It was a great production! Love puppets, especially Aida. It developed in me so much compassion to her pain, suffering. The slow movements of puppet, all her figure are very powerful on stage and with beautiful voice of Sandra.
This production has passion, real feelings, vocally brilliant!
Opera is not a history’s class.
It is more important to appeal to our deep feelings!
Opera is not a museum either !
Recommended Literature: https://operagazet.com/opera-recensies-2020/opera-is-not-a-museum/
I agree with them that this is another example of THE EMPEROR’S NEW CLOTHES style of directing. This is KONZEPT for directorial self platituding instead of sticking to the story and doing something interesting with it WITHIN ITS FRAMEWORK. As a singer, if I were doing a production like this, I would be doing it ONLY for the paycheck. There is no redeeming artistic merit in having to stand beside a puppet and singing your soul out to someone who isn’t next to you. I suppose the only reason Aida and Amonasro were the puppets is because they are the outsiders….I… Read more »
It seems that your article misunderstands what Ms. de Beer is actually trying to do. She does not try to say that AIDA is itself a story about colonialism, sexism, etc., but rather because the story was written during a time of colonialism, sexism, etc., she is using them to interpret anew the original story. Yes, she is placing things onto the text, as her own frame, to reimagine, re-evaluate, and decontextualize the story. Yes, opera does not need this. However, one could argue, if the same opera is played the same way from 1871 until 2021, are we actually… Read more »
“She does not try to say that AIDA is itself a story about colonialism” ??
LdB, verbatim: “Aïda is a colonial story.”
“Decontextualizing the story”. We call that “: “fucking up the story”. And the opera. And opera lovers.
There was no artistic merit in this production. Kauffman looked amused and who could blame him. Fancy making love to a puppet! It seemed that he had lost interest except at the scene with him and Amneris. Just a French Farce. I was hoping for something great and it was awful. Also there was a complete lack of emotional engagement. Put it away and let it disappear. I won’t be going to productions of this director again. The orchestra was great however but they didn’t have to watch it!
That Aida from Paris can be summed up in one word – Drivel. Or perhaps Crap (with an added adjective in Front of it). How to kill opera: put on nonsense like this. Truly insulting .The director waffled on about ? and the compere waffled on ad nauseum as usual. A fitting introduction to the bullshit to follow.