http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/19/blood-and-passion-in-a-new-salome/
This review is over-all well written, but there are some
organizational problems that make it, in my estimation, a less than great
review. The most obvious of these is that the description of the set and the
staging is a throw away, the last paragraph of the review. It seems to me that
reviews are most helpful when they help a reader who has not seen the
performance envision it in their mind. The sets for this staging were
particularly interesting, with a dark, dystopian aesthetic that reminded me of
Fritz Lang’s Metropolis. Without that
information at the beginning, the reader could, quite naturally, imagine a very
traditional pseudo-Babylonian look which frames the performance in a different
light. The costuming is never mentioned at all, which further separates the reader
from the performance and avoids more possible venues of analysis (especially
considering that the Five Hebrews, characters in the opera, were dressed as
modern day Hasidic Jews, an anomaly amongst the non-specific, vaguely futuristic garments worn by all the
other characters).
I am also curious about the introduction referring to the “bravely
and marvelously macabre production,” without really describing what makes this
production more macabre than any other. He later references the Grand Guignol
when speaking of the final scene (in which Salome hold the decapitated head of
John the Baptist), but again, this didn’t capture the actual production, which
wasn’t any darker than Salome’s story usually is, and, as Grand Guignol
implies, didn’t feature a more realistic, special effects assisted beheading. To
me, this again misses an opportunity to really capture what made this
performance unique. In that final scene, this Salome practically straddles the
head of John the Baptists, rubbing it against her crotch as it bleeds bright
red stage blood profusely. This scene did not seem to be, as the review
implies, a marvelous dark romp, but the logical conclusion to a Salome portrayed
more as hysterical (with all the misogyny implied) than seductive. I don’t
bring this up to say that the reviewer should have shared my interpretation,
but rather to say that by not showing the characterizations that set this
production apart, he fails the reader.
No comments:
Post a Comment