i have always been a bit of an entertainment snob: musicals for tourists, theater for residents, dan brown books are vastly overrated. guidelines follow when thinking of format and venue: art films at the angelica, philobolus and alvin ailey at the joyce, etc. but when the met and peter gelb started hiring big-shot film people to direct opera, the cracks in this argument began to show. among others, anthony mighella's madame butterfly was delightful. and now, for the 2nd year, the met is broadcasting performances to movie theatres internationally and live ( i don't know how the live part works in say, london, where one is just not going to go to the opera at 8:30 in the morning, but, i digress).
my lovely neighbor melinda bought tickets to romeo and juliet which was broadcast in december and i went with her although skeptically. in a word, it was fabulous. i mean it would have been fabulous at the met, no doubt. but the camera angles, backstage glimpses between scenes, intermission interviews with diva rene flemming, and shots of placido domingo directing were all five star extras for those watching from a movie theater.
and the performances were top notch. anna netrebko looks like audrina from the hills (doesn't she?) with pipes (and presumably a brain). seriously, the wedding night scene was hot. have i ever thought of the opera as hot? so no, not all of this has to do with the broadcasting to movie screens, but these are all components in making opera, well, hot.
this saturday at 1:30, the met is broadcasting "macbeth" and i'll be watching from the participating theater in charlotte, nc, with my friend emily, and, i am sure, many excited others. go. you won't be sorry!
No comments:
Post a Comment