Rosenkavalier conundrum

Now Hugo von Hoffmanstahl's libretto for Der Rosenkavalier is one of the great libretti in operatic history and virtually a work of literature in its own right. It was carefully constructed by Hoffmanstahl and Strauss so must be exactly what was meant. Which leads me to the oddity of the opening of the 3rd Act. What is going on?

Now, we know that Octavian and the Italian intriguers are planning a trap for Ochs, the intention being to get Ochs to try and seduce Mariandel (Octavian in disguise), with a false message to Faninal ensuring that Ochs prospective father-in-law sees what a rogue his son-in-law really is. Annina (the female Italian intriguer) is pretending to be Ochs's wife and children have been hired (in many productions these are the 3 noble orphans from Act 1).

That it all goes horribly wrong because of the presence of the Watch, Sophie Faninal and the Marschallin is quite clear.

But why on earth are there a bunch of blokes who are hidden in trapdoors and other places around the room. What have they to do with Octavian's plot? Is his intention to scare Ochs so that he behaves irrationally? When I first read the libretto I had assumed that they were being hidden so they could spy on Ochs and Mariandel, but a careful reading of the text makes it clear that they are there to jump out on signal, something which is included in Strauss's orchestration. They feel redundant and seem to be present simply to add a bit of fun, so that the open of Act 3 can have the requisite busy-ness. I have often wondered what a cut Act 3, shorn of this business would be like. The opening section would be far shorter, just an orchestral prelude perhaps with a short scene between Octavian and the intriguers before Ochs comes in. Then the incursions of the hidden men later on would be removed. What would the effect be, better or worse?

Norma conundrum

There are few dramatic conundrums in early 19th century Italian opera because the drama is essentially non-realistic so that you have to suspend disbelief for long periods of time. But in Bellini's Norma, the fact that Norma has been able to conceal a long-term affair with Pollione and the production of two children seems to stretch belief to beyond credulity. In fact most directors don't even try and simply present the events as fact and leave the audience to wonder, perhaps the the local populace are particularly credulous or stupid?

When Ian Judge's production of Norma was new in Scotland the title role was sung by Jane Eaglen. The doctor friend I was with commented that it was the only time that the pregnancy issue was believable as it would have been all to easy for some one of Eaglen's (very) substantial frame to have concealed the pregnancy. This might not have been Judge's idea, the casting was probably done on the basis of Eaglen's preeminent fitness for the role rather than her ability to believably hide two pregnancies.

But one idea of Judge's I did find particularly striking. During Casta Diva he was obviously concerned to ensure that Norma stood out amongst the assembled populace (and the stage at the Theatre Royal in Glasgow does not offer that much space). So the chorus prostrated themselves in front of their priestess and sang the chorus parts of the aria in this prone position. Very, very effective.

Rigoletto conundrum

Another interesting conundrum from Verdi, this time from Rigoletto. What is the significance of Sparafucile appearing just at that moment? Was he just touting for trade and generally in the habit of appearing on street corners asking people if they wanted the services of a friendly neighbourhood assassin. Or had he done some research and knew that Rigoletto might be needing his services. Are we to assume that the Duke, who seems to have been in the habit of frequenting Sparafucile's establishment, had dropped some sort of indication that the Duke was having an interesting liaison with Rigoletto's daughter.

Sparafucile's establishment is some sort of inn, so are we to assume that he is the sort of 'hail fellow well met' publican in whom people confide things? Is that why he is also a successful asssasin?

La Traviata conundrum

Having recently reviewed a performance of La Traviata and now finding myself listening to a CD of it (the ica classics re-issue of the 1958 Callas performance from Covent Garden), I keep coming back to a couple of conundrums. Yes, I know that opera plots always need a bit of forgiveness, but some operas have lacunae in apparently well-put-together plots that make you wonder.

Take Giorgio Germont. At the end of Act 2, scene1, his son storms out and Giorgio works out where he is going by retrieving the invitation from Flora. The next time we see Giorgio it is at Flora's party. Now, what is he wearing?

Is he still wearing his street clothes? If he is, then he came straight to the party from Alfredo and Violetta's villa, so why did he get into the party which we have to assume is very smart. Would the door man have just let him in, without invitation and in a day suit? Did he have to kick up a fuss and what did he say? This is the option generally preferred by modern day directors and, after all, it means that you don't need a costume change for this character.

Otherwise, if he is in evening wear then does that mean he went back to his hotel room first? We have to assume that he'd taken a hotel in Paris, after all he's come up from the country to see Alfredo and Violetta. So, that means even though he came on a mission to convince his son's mistress to give him up, Giorgio brought his evening suit with him. Just in case; ever a man to be prepared for all occasions our Giorgio!

Now. Back to Act 2, scene and Alfredo this time. At the beginning of the scene Alfredo is shocked to learn from Anina that she is going into Paris to sell thing for Violetta so that they can keep going financially? Now, what do we learn from this.

That Alfredo is shocked that Violetta has been keeping him, in which case he must be thick and think that villas with staff grow on trees. Either that or he is so used to being kept on short reins by his father that he has no sense of money. Or Violetta has been deliberately hiding things, pretending that his allowance from his father is enough?

Or, he is shocked not that Violetta has been keeping him but that she is having to sell things. I.e. he is comfortable with being a kept man, but only if the woman is rich.

So what we come down to is that Alfredo is either thick or a cad and judging by his behaviour in the rest of the opera, I'm inclined to come down on the side of dim if not actually thick.