Moses und Aron

Incomprehensible the attitude of critics to the work that I've seen from Huillet and Strauss, be it their Chronicle of Ana Magdalena BAch, their Antigone, or this insubstantial filming of Schoenberg's Moses und Aron.

I am not talking about the work of Schoenberg, whose undoubted merit as one of the absolute masterpieces of 20th century art does not belong to the makers of this film. We should not forget that the music is from Shoenberg, the text is from Schoenberg. I try to value the contribution of the film itself, that is, the filming.

The filming is null. When a singer sings, it focuses on him, when the choir sings, it focuses on the choir. When the choir sings for a long time, several shots alternate from different angles. Sometimes when a chorus sing there is a pan over the landscape.

Well sometimes when the chorus sing the camera shows Aaron...

It could be shot in one day, no great effort as characters don't move.

The six characters and the choir are placed in a ruined Roman amphitheater.

Sometimes the camera moves from one character to another, or to the chorus. The image is stark, without nuances, under a blazing sun.

Camera movements are clumsy and jerky. Everything seems out of sync from the soundtrack.

And that's it. There's no more. Look no further. Let's not pay attention to the delusional sociopolitical analyzes that we can find on the Internet. It seems everything is good when you have the "correct" political ideas...

One of the more watchable filmed operas -- even if one is not terribly fond of the opera. Of course it's not a "gustatory" work (in Brecht's terms) -- meant not for enjoyment but edification. This fits well with the Straub-Huillet aesthetic -- their films are, if nothing else, difficult, so it's a good match between text and director(s). I am somehow (perhaps it is pure snobbishness!) fond of their work. Certainly the earlier short films, "Not Reconciled" and "Machorka Muff" affected me deeply when I saw them in the early 70s. (Their cut-up narratives are appealing to the puzzle-solver in me; their strong ethical stances to the priest in me.) And while the austerity of the Moses/Aron/People scenes is very stark, there is also plenty of vitality in the Golden Calf/orgy scenes. The sacrifice of the virgins, in fact, made me think of Pasolini: visually beautiful yet morally chilling.

Schoenberg's music will not be to all tastes, but I bought the Michael Gielen / ORF soundtrack recording after seeing this film, something I didn't do after viewing The Lion King or Titanic. Gielen, incidentally, is Schoenberg's son-in-law.

I found this production riveting with intense performances from the two principals. An austere staging suits the score.

I would love an opportunity to see this film again. Any chance that Cinematheque Ontario will reprise their Opera As Cinema series? The other films in the series to rival Moses and Aaron in quality if not in style were Katerina Izmailova, Boris Godunov, and Tales of Hoffman.

Schoenberg returned to the faith of his forefathers after experiencing persecution at the hands of us Christians. He really came back with a vengeance.

It has been said that Arnold Schönberg is a composer whose works are more written about than performed. Another form of this left-handed compliment: Schönberg is a composer's composer. Be it as it may, he cast a long shadow on 20th century music and his influence is still felt.

This opera, his only, was released in 1932 but never completed. It was first staged in 1957, after the composer's death in 1951 (there was a concert performance in 1954). The story is the struggle between Moses and Aron. Moses is a fanatic who believes he is in possession of The Law but despairs of communicating it to the people, while Aron doesn't care much for the details of The Law but has the gift of making his version understandable to, and loved by the masses. This story, like many others in the Bible is archetypal; Moses symbolizes revolutionaries in all disciplines whose new and untrodden paths are misunderstood/rejected by the public. Among the interpretations of the opera, this is the most amusing: Moses stands for Schönberg, despairing of having the public appreciate his twelve-tone system of composition, while Aron represents Schönberg's disciple Alban Berg, who used twelve-tone only when it suited him and composed two masterpieces, Wozzeck and Lulu that are in the regular repertory of many opera houses and frequently staged, unlike Moses und Aron.

Moses and Aron puts Schönberg's mastery of the orchestra and the human voice at the service of the story. For instance, Aron's singing nears bel canto, while Moses dellvers his lines in Sprechstimme, a cross between speaking and singing and sounds abrupt and nearly inarticulate at times. However, refined techniques do not add up to an inspired opera. This movie was the first attempt to put the work on screen. Direction by Jean-Marie Straub and Danièle Huillet is static, with fixed camera angles (as in most of their work) but this goes well with the opera, which is itself static except for a few crowd scenes.

Since 1975, there have been other stagings and recordings of the opera. Some are in DVD, some in the streaming services, some in You Tube.. A final touch: apparently Schönberg changed the usual Aaron to Aron so that the title had 12 letters. 12 tones or avoidance of 13?

Schoenberg's music is never going to be everybody's cup of tea. Least of all mine, I appreciate Schoenberg and Expressionism in general much more than I did when I was doing music GCSEs four years ago, but I'll be honest in saying that I don't think he is ever going to be one of my favourites. Moses Und Aaron is a very problematic opera with a lot of the staging giving you the sense that it is next to impossible to realise on stage, like with the three biblical miracles and the Golden Calf scenes. However, while it takes time to warm to, the score is very powerful stuff. I think this film version is above decent, surprisingly effective even in parts. True a lot of the acting is stolid to the point it could be seen as immobile and the ending(like with the opera) feels very anti-climatic and inconclusive. However, the austere setting fits very well with the equally austere scoring, though the Golden Calf/Orgy scenes are somewhat exciting. The camera work is fascinating from the long shots to the very geometric camera movements. The orchestral playing is marvellously evocative, and the conducting keeps things moving while never rushing or dragging. The chorus are also not bad, though at times sounding under-rehearsed. The two leads are superb, Gunther Reich is a very commanding Moses and Louis Devos a contrastingly eloquent Aaron. Overall, this is not going to be an opera or film that everybody is going to like, but considering how problematic the opera is I think the film does its job better than expected. 7.5/10 Bethany Cox