This past Friday I saw the Detroit Opera House's production of Le Nozze di Figaro, which was excellent. It was my first live, in person (more on that in a moment) opera, and I couldn't have been happier. Even though I was in the poor seats (read: the balcony), there was still an excellent view of the stage. The only thing that threw me off was the presence of surtitles (i.e. the translation of the Italian displayed on a screen above the stage). That production is now over, so I can hardly say "go see it!" but I do encourage you to see an opera at the Detroit Opera House, especially if you're a Michigan resident. The cost is hardly prohibitive (about $50). If you're a student, you can also get good deals (like seeing the next three operas for $85 total).
If you aren't in Michigan, and don't care to spend money to see one in person, I will now shamelessly plug the Metropolitan Opera's high definition video broadcasts. Last year the Met started broadcasting some of their operas to movie theatres all across the country, which was more successful than one would think. According to this article, the Met is tripling the number of theatres that it will be broadcasting to. The first opera of the high-def season is Gounod's Romeo et Juliette.* Tickets are $22, which is considerably more expensive than a normal movie ticket - but these are neither normal nor movies. It's also much less expensive than going to New York and getting tickets to the Met. I took in several productions through this medium last year (Eugene Onegin, The First Emperor, Il Trittico, and Il Barbiere di Siviglia) and didn't regret spending the money at all. In fact I was so smitten with Eugene Onegin (er, perhaps I should say smitten with Renee Fleming) that I saw it twice.
The only depressing thing about going to the Met broadcasts was that it made me fear for the future of opera - almost everyone attending those showings were fifty or older. If there is no young audience for opera, who will continue to fund productions? Who will be the audience for opera in thirty years? in one hundred years? If you are completely new to opera, I would recommend checking out one of these broadcasts - I suspect you will be pleasantly surprised. I was initially intimidated by opera, and suspect this is a fear shared by others. Let me assure you that it's a groundless fear - opera does not require more intelligence than an artful movie requires. In fact, it may require less. If you enjoy music, acting, and displays of great talent and virtuosity, you will enjoy opera. So buy tickets already!
*Don't go to this broadcast simply because you are taken with the Bard's language - no one can re-write Shakespeare, and Jules Barbier and Michel Carre (they wrote the libretto for Gounod's opera) were no exceptions.
6 comments:
I saw "Madama Butterfly" in Chicago a few years ago and absolutely was blown away. I should really go see an opera at the Met before I leave this area.
The closest thing to Opera I've seen is well, Ingmar Bergman's The Magic Flute (the film) and The Phantom of the Opera (albeit that probably doesn't count) and then there was the Beethoven Symphony I saw earlier this month. I've been to a few musical shows over the years but not many, partly due to cost. Ditto goes the same for plays. I think that's probably why you're going to find old people at the Opera. Young ones can't really afford it. I don't understand why cultural experiences need be so costly, foreign films are a perfect example, where as you can buy a crappy Hollywood schlock film for $5 or less used.
This is a great point...it really is unfortunate how costly it is to take in a symphony, play, or opera. Or even to buy a good movie. At least with films we now have Netflix. I was shocked at how much it would cost me to buy "The Seventh Seal." $30... and that's before taxes etc.
I saw a production of La traviata a while ago, and it was my first time going to the opera. I couldn't really evaluate it (musically) at this point, but I had a good time, and it was accessible. Things like poetry or opera can seem intimidating at first, and sometimes the reason for that is some of the snobbery that surrounds them (as opposed to the actual artworks themselves).
I know that where I live they have a program for people under 30 where you can get cheaper seats to the symphony, for example. I think they're realizing that if they don't make an effort to draw in younger crowds, they won't be able to continue with the performances.
Making everything so expensive also sets up an elitism which I dislike. People with less money can experience the arts and it adds to the prejudice that poorer people are "uncultured."
Sorry, I meant
"people with less money CAN'T experience the arts..."
Post a Comment