Discussion:
Would Such A Staging Be Understood By Today's Audiences?
(too old to reply)
A.C. Douglas
2015-09-11 02:16:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In 1958 I was eyewitness to Wieland Wagner's radical new staging of _Die Walküre_, part of his radical new staging of the complete _Ring_ for the 1951-58 post-war reopening of the Bayreuth Festival which staging I previously described in an S&F entry thusly:

=== Begin Quote ===
With Wieland taking his (unacknowledged) cue from the groundbreaking work of Swiss stage designer Adolphe Appia (1862-1928), the production's almost total absence of stage furniture, its use of non-period-or-place-committal costumes and settings, and the creative use of lighting to model and shape space and the characters who inhabit it, Wieland -- taking his grandfather at his word when in 1853 he declared that the yet unwritten music of the _Ring_ "shall sound in a way that people shall hear what they cannot see" -- created a neutral "frame" or "matrix" for the tetralogy, so to speak, that permitted the music itself, working in tandem with the text and the audience's own imagination, to fill in all the missing stage furniture as if it all were right in front of the audience's eyes. It was a masterstroke, a stroke of genius even, as it made manifest to the audience in the most intimate, Werktreue way imaginable Richard Wagner's deepest interior vision of the _Ring_ while rendering Wieland's properly transparent.
=== End Quote ===

Would Such A Staging Be Understood By Today's Audiences? Except for historically informed Wagnerians with knowledge of that previous radical new staging, I strongly suspect not.

Any thoughts on the matter?

ACD
Jay Kauffman
2015-09-11 02:25:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A.C. Douglas
=== Begin Quote ===
With Wieland taking his (unacknowledged) cue from the groundbreaking work of Swiss stage designer Adolphe Appia (1862-1928), the production's almost total absence of stage furniture, its use of non-period-or-place-committal costumes and settings, and the creative use of lighting to model and shape space and the characters who inhabit it, Wieland -- taking his grandfather at his word when in 1853 he declared that the yet unwritten music of the _Ring_ "shall sound in a way that people shall hear what they cannot see" -- created a neutral "frame" or "matrix" for the tetralogy, so to speak, that permitted the music itself, working in tandem with the text and the audience's own imagination, to fill in all the missing stage furniture as if it all were right in front of the audience's eyes. It was a masterstroke, a stroke of genius even, as it made manifest to the audience in the most intimate, Werktreue way imaginable Richard Wagner's deepest interior vision of the _Ring_ while rendering Wieland's properly transparent.
=== End Quote ===
Would Such A Staging Be Understood By Today's Audiences? Except for historically informed Wagnerians with knowledge of that previous radical new staging, I strongly suspect not.
Any thoughts on the matter?
ACD
By 1958 it wasn't so radical and new - it had been around with minor changes from 1951. You aren't telling us anything we don;t already know about Wielands staging starting in 1951. Why do you think audiences of today wouldn't enjoy it????? Christ I swear you just LOOK for things to complain about --and its always the same
A.C. Douglas
2015-09-11 02:32:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jay Kauffman
Post by A.C. Douglas
=== Begin Quote ===
With Wieland taking his (unacknowledged) cue from the groundbreaking work of Swiss stage designer Adolphe Appia (1862-1928), the production's almost total absence of stage furniture, its use of non-period-or-place-committal costumes and settings, and the creative use of lighting to model and shape space and the characters who inhabit it, Wieland -- taking his grandfather at his word when in 1853 he declared that the yet unwritten music of the _Ring_ "shall sound in a way that people shall hear what they cannot see" -- created a neutral "frame" or "matrix" for the tetralogy, so to speak, that permitted the music itself, working in tandem with the text and the audience's own imagination, to fill in all the missing stage furniture as if it all were right in front of the audience's eyes. It was a masterstroke, a stroke of genius even, as it made manifest to the audience in the most intimate, Werktreue way imaginable Richard Wagner's deepest interior vision of the _Ring_ while rendering Wieland's properly transparent.
=== End Quote ===
Would Such A Staging Be Understood By Today's Audiences? Except for historically informed Wagnerians with knowledge of that previous radical new staging, I strongly suspect not.
Any thoughts on the matter?
ACD
By 1958 it wasn't so radical and new - it had been around with minor changes from 1951. You aren't telling us anything we don;t already know about Wielands staging starting in 1951. Why do you think audiences of today wouldn't enjoy it????? Christ I swear you just LOOK for things to complain about --and its always the same
Idiot.

ACD
Jay Kauffman
2015-09-11 03:42:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A.C. Douglas
Post by Jay Kauffman
Post by A.C. Douglas
=== Begin Quote ===
With Wieland taking his (unacknowledged) cue from the groundbreaking work of Swiss stage designer Adolphe Appia (1862-1928), the production's almost total absence of stage furniture, its use of non-period-or-place-committal costumes and settings, and the creative use of lighting to model and shape space and the characters who inhabit it, Wieland -- taking his grandfather at his word when in 1853 he declared that the yet unwritten music of the _Ring_ "shall sound in a way that people shall hear what they cannot see" -- created a neutral "frame" or "matrix" for the tetralogy, so to speak, that permitted the music itself, working in tandem with the text and the audience's own imagination, to fill in all the missing stage furniture as if it all were right in front of the audience's eyes. It was a masterstroke, a stroke of genius even, as it made manifest to the audience in the most intimate, Werktreue way imaginable Richard Wagner's deepest interior vision of the _Ring_ while rendering Wieland's properly transparent.
=== End Quote ===
Would Such A Staging Be Understood By Today's Audiences? Except for historically informed Wagnerians with knowledge of that previous radical new staging, I strongly suspect not.
Any thoughts on the matter?
ACD
By 1958 it wasn't so radical and new - it had been around with minor changes from 1951. You aren't telling us anything we don;t already know about Wielands staging starting in 1951. Why do you think audiences of today wouldn't enjoy it????? Christ I swear you just LOOK for things to complain about --and its always the same
Idiot.
ACD
Typical reply from a person who can't face the truth about himself- whether he can't admit he is wrong in discussions with others here or just can't face the fact that he a boring, complaining whiner - stuck on the same issues forever and unable to move on
Herman van der Woude
2015-09-11 08:13:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jay Kauffman
Post by A.C. Douglas
Post by Jay Kauffman
Post by A.C. Douglas
In 1958 I was eyewitness to Wieland Wagner's radical new staging of _Die
Walküre_, part of his radical new staging of the complete _Ring_ for the
1951-58 post-war reopening of the Bayreuth Festival which staging I
=== Begin Quote ===
With Wieland taking his (unacknowledged) cue from the groundbreaking work
of Swiss stage designer Adolphe Appia (1862-1928), the production's almost
total absence of stage furniture, its use of non-period-or-place-committal
costumes and settings, and the creative use of lighting to model and shape
space and the characters who inhabit it, Wieland -- taking his grandfather
at his word when in 1853 he declared that the yet unwritten music of the
_Ring_ "shall sound in a way that people shall hear what they cannot see"
-- created a neutral "frame" or "matrix" for the tetralogy, so to speak,
that permitted the music itself, working in tandem with the text and the
audience's own imagination, to fill in all the missing stage furniture as
if it all were right in front of the audience's eyes. It was a
masterstroke, a stroke of genius even, as it made manifest to the audience
in the most intimate, Werktreue way imaginable Richard Wagner's deepest
interior vision of the _Ring_ while rendering Wieland's properly
transparent. === End Quote ===
Would Such A Staging Be Understood By Today's Audiences? Except for
historically informed Wagnerians with knowledge of that previous radical
new staging, I strongly suspect not.
Any thoughts on the matter?
ACD
By 1958 it wasn't so radical and new - it had been around with minor
changes from 1951. You aren't telling us anything we don;t already know
about Wielands staging starting in 1951. Why do you think audiences of
today wouldn't enjoy it????? Christ I swear you just LOOK for things to
complain about --and its always the same
Idiot.
ACD
Typical reply from a person who can't face the truth about himself- whether
he can't admit he is wrong in discussions with others here or just can't face
the fact that he a boring, complaining whiner - stuck on the same issues
forever and unable to move on
"Idiot", is the best compliment a man can get from ACD when trying to
go into discussion with him. See it as a medal of honour! Many of us
are branded "idiots" in the past. Just don't argue with him, that
doesn't have any sense.
--
Met vriendelijke groet,
Cheers,
Herman van der Woude
Loading...