Rigoletto

There was a good production of Rigoletto somewhere here, but sadly it didn't work for me. It's not awful, but a lot of assets did spoil my enjoyment of it. I love Rigoletto, it is one of my favourite Verdi operas, and I have loved many other Rigolettos namely the 1982 Jean Pierre Ponnelle film, the 2001 BBC production and the Tito Gobbi film.

I too very much liked the 1977 Met production, even if Cornell MacNeil's lead performance was rather inconsistent. For recordings, my favourite is the one from 1971 with Milnes, Sutherland, Pavarotti and Talvela.

Before I talk about what was wrong with this production, the opera itself is not at fault. The characters are vivid and memorable and the music is magnificent. The orchestra overall do play very well, particularly during Cortigiani and the Quartet. Caro Nomme however for my tastes was too staccato and despite John Tomlinson's very good Sparafucile the meeting between him and Rigoletto is just lacking in atmosphere.

Neither are the performances at fault. John Rawnsley is a very moving and malevolent Rigoletto, and Marie McLoughlin an ideal Gilda. And I have to say the scenes with these two together are suitably tender. Arthur Davis is blustery and cynical as the Duke of Mantua, with a vigorous La Donna E Mobile and a poignant Parmi Veder Le Lagrime.

I have no problem with modern settings. The costumes and sets did look good I must admit, my problem with it was that they didn't do much to enhance the atmosphere and story. Staging is interesting if uneven, Rigoletto and Gilda's duets are fine as is the opening scene and Cortigiani and the climatic trio is very intense, however despite the superb playing and singing Si Vendetta just lacks the impact feeling rather stand-and-deliver quality.

Act 3 is definitely the most effective of the three acts, seeing as it is generally the most consistent in staging and pretty much the only act where the sound is at least decent and the narrative clear. The story has its heartfelt and powerful moments but the inconsistent staging and setting change make it less clear than it ought to be.

Where this Rigoletto though is let down most is the picture quality and especially the sound. The picture quality is grainy with one too many had held close-ups(some shaky) and could've done with being much sharper while the sound is terrible, muffled and constantly fading in and out.

Overall, despite the cast and music, disappointing. 5/10 Bethany Cox

This is a great example of how opera plots set in a culture or historical time-frame too distant from the English speaking world of today can be updated for instant replay and sympathetic connection.

Of course it does very much beg the question of why Rigolleto should not be about the Yakusa and re-located to Tokyo, or why Zhang Yimou (the towering giant of Chinese cinema) should not set it in Shanghai between the last two World Wars (a kind of "Shanghaid Triad", one of his most accomplished achievements). But ALAS we live in a world where American Imperialism must have its way both in shaping the future of the globe politically, economically and even, culturally.

After all everyone has seen Hollywood gangster movies, and so will relate instantly to Jonathan Miller's re-telling of Verdi's re-telling of Victor Hugo's play, Le Roi s'Amuse - itself a socio-political critique.

Rigoletto, the court jester in the corrupt court of the Duke of Mantua, is now the comic hunchback barman for a NY gangster. Both John Rawnsley (Rigoletto) and Arthur Davies (Duke) give compelling performances, with Marie McLaughlin (Gilda) stealing the show as an inexperienced teenager in love with the wrong man. Jean Rigby (Maddalena) and John Tomlinson (Sparafucilie) are also very good.

The English translation is terrific.

Finally, a word about Jonathan Miller - his "adaptations" are so much more convincing than those of commonly regarded "Bad Boy of Opera" Peter Sellars. The latter is heavy handed and always wrings the juice out of a masterpiece to leave a mere cynical husk. Absolutely heartless - a bad artistic choice to mistake crude satire for real art. Miller on the other hand makes opera relevant by re-inventing contexts which we can relate to, but without destroying the integrity of the original.

The productions by Sellars is the work of a narcissist who sees his own vision as being more important than the composer's, while Miller's work has wit, flair and contemporary relevance while paying homage where it is most due.

This is a famous production by Jonathan Miller for English National Opera that is still being revived nearly 27 years later. The recording of the original production was made by the, now defunct, Thames Television. Memo to TV moguls: if you insist on broadcasting operas, you will probably end up losing your franchise.

I have been curious to see this production for some time so I was pleased to see that it was scheduled by Sky Arts as part of its Jonathan Miller tribute evening. Sadly, by then, the master must have languished too long in the Thames vault. I cannot recommend this film as the sound keeps fading in and out every few seconds making it a very painful experience to listen too. It is possible that Sky Arts just broadcast a duff copy but I don't think so since a reviewer of the DVD on Amazon makes the same complaint.

The film is prefaced by two introductions from Miller himself. First there is the 2009 Miller who makes the astonishing assertion that it was one of the earliest examples of theatrical updating. No-one can ever criticise Miller for being unduly modest but, if what he says is true, now we know who to blame for all these modern opera productions set in lap dancing clubs and public lavatories. In the second introduction, the 1982 Miller explains, in a very patronising way, that this production is not set in 16th century Mantua but in 1950s New York: "Some of you... will be startled, perhaps even outraged". Miller also makes it clear that his research for this production did not go much further than watching The Godfather and Some Like It Hot (Dats right, we was at Rigoletto's).

As for the production itself, it looks rather cliché-ridden. This may be unfair because it is possible, as Miller suggests, that he actually invented these clichés. It's like watching an Orson Welles film and thinking that you have seen that shot a thousand times before without realising that it was being used for the first time. The first act, in a New York bar, with Rigoletto as the barman looks good but the narrative is unclear, much less clear than in many traditional productions. This is despite its being performed in James Fenton's English translation. Gilda's "Caro nome che il mio cor" becomes "Dearest name of my first love" which is a little too staccato. One influence that Miller does not own up to is West Side Story. Marie McLaughlin's balcony scene as Gilda bears a striking resemblance to Natalie Wood's in that film.

For me, Act III is the most successful. Arthur Davies gives a blustering performance as the Duke singing along to a jukebox playing La Donna E Mobile. There is an effectively staged Quartet and the English translation comes into its own in the final scene with John Rawnsley's moving Rigoletto. I was amused to see a slender young man, with a familiar look to him, singing the part of Sparafucile. He turns out to be none other than the great bass John Tomlinson.

While it may be an interesting production, when the poor sound quality is taken into account, this film has only historical interest. It seems an awful pity to say that about a film that is only 27 years old. I had waited so long to see it. Maybe I should have gone to hear it live at ENO instead.