Classical Music Forum banner

Lully on DVD and Blu-ray

9K views 38 replies 7 participants last post by  schigolch 
#1 ·


This DVD of Lully's Cadmus et Hermione received a lot of praise from Gramophone a couple of months ago, and I've been looking at a few youtubes, eg here and here

The stage sets are fascinating; the music sounds pretty fine to these ears; and there's a ring of authenticity to the production which I find quite thrilling. I may well be tempted to buy one of these. Any thoughts?
 
See less See more
1
#2 ·


I took the plunge and bought one. It costs an arm and a leg (see here), and there are no extras. Just two hours of opera. Just that.

So far I've watched only the Prologue and Act I, but I think, already, that this is the finest opera DVD I've ever seen. The authenticity is palpable. Recognising that the most crucial factor in staging such a performance in 1673 was lighting, and integrating the lighting with the structure of the sets, these guys have done precisely that. The whole thing, as far as I can see, is illuminated with a mass of small naked flames, and this sets the stage apart in a world of its own, with this mysterious, very slightly shifting light (the changes consciously noticeable only when you look for them). So visually, it's very beautiful because of the lighting. But equal attention has been lavished on the costumes, the sets, and even the carefully articulated and rehearsed gestures and expressions of the singers. I can't imagine we could ever see anything closer to what Lully wanted his audience (the King primarily, one supposes) to see. The DVD is like a window into a world over 300 years old, yet bristling with life, and in no sense museumified.

And as to what we hear ... the music is stupendous. There never seems to be a dull moment; the orchestral playing is brilliant as far as I can tell, and the singing totally convincing. The whole is far, far more than the sum of its parts, and while watching I found myself being deeply moved - not identifiably by the music, nor the lighting, nor the gestures, nor the sets - but by the magnificent synthesis of all of these. When Gramophone gave this a rave review, they got it absolutely right. (Gaston, this might have been made for you, I think.)

Here are the you tube links again, for convenience: here and here.
 
#6 · (Edited by Moderator)
I've now seen the whole of this ...



... and I hardly know what to say. I'm haunted by it. Images from it keep floating into my head at quiet moments. The expressive gestures - the focus on the hands of Cadmus and Hermione which, as the opera evolves, move closer and closer without touching until, finally ... they do. I have never seen hands used with such expressive power. And that is just one tiny aspect of this production. The finale is so formal, and yet so moving. The combination of Lully's superb music and the shifting tableau of characters on stage is perfect; I'll tell you, I found tears hovering all the way through the finale - not the gut-wrenching emotionalism of a Puccini opera, but something far more delicate, arising from the sense of great care lavished on every detail, the perfection of the way it's blended with the music. Yes, it has a 'happy ending' - but what's so moving is not so much the happy fate of the characters, but the astounding perfection of the art, and the sense of privilege at being able to see something so perfectly formed, both visually and musically. We all now can watch something made, with no expense or effort spared, for a King. And not just any king at that, but the Sun King himself. Great Art, indeed.
 
#8 ·
Sounds like a must have to me, Alan.
Definitely. I've been looking to see if the same people (Alpha Productions) have released anything else using the same 'authentic' treatment, but as far as I can tell the only thing available is Le Bourgeouis Gentilhomme, which I'm not sure about. It predates Cadmus, and seems to be a sort of half-formed not-really-opera. These DVDs are extremely expensive, so some serious research needs doing on that one.
 
#10 · (Edited by Moderator)
Available here.

I must admit this has some hard acts to follow (see above, all of which I hereby award 5 stars); and in that context, it doesn't do so well, really. This is more how I always found DVDs/videos of opera to be in the past: worthy, but tending towards dullness; as if the not-being-there-really sucks some of the life out of it.

There are some negative things that affect my enjoyment of the music. First, the sound balance doesn't seem quite right. The male singers seem very much louder than the female singers, and when several of each gender sing together this seems particularly noticeable. The other thing is... well, you know that nasality, and the rolling of 'r's that is somewhat emphasised in French singing? Well here, it seems quite obtrusively overemphasised sometimes, and can be irritating. (Here's a youtube where you can hear a bit of it for yourself and decide if it matters.)

Some of the dancing is very good - there's a fine session of danced fencing (with swords) that's really good stuff. And there's no silly nonsense about the production; it's set firmly in the C17th (though seeing Perseus and Andromeda pottering about the stage in seventeenth century garb does require a bit of suspension of disbelief).

So far then - I'd give it 3 stars. Worth having, but not to be compared with Les Indes Galantes, Giulio Cesare, or Cadmus et Hermione, described above. Of course, I have been known to change my mind ....
 
#29 ·
I remembered that that you weren't very enthusiastic about this one, Alan. But I've ordered a copy anyway and I expect it in my mailbox anyday now. I just hope for the best although I'll probably be disappointed. The problem is that if you want to buy more than one or two DVD's a year of baroque operas where everyone isn't walking around in a business suit you can't be too choosy. :(
 
#11 ·
Yes, judging from that youtube it doesn't seem to be as sparkling as the others. Still, three or four five star dvd's followed by a three star effort is pretty good going I'd say. Thanks for posting - Cadmus & Hermione stays on the number one spot of my 'what baroque opera dvd to get next' list.
 
#13 ·


I'm still doggedly plodding my way through this (with the emphasis on 'doggedly' and 'plodding'), and have two more acts to plod through later today. Perseus's encounter with Medusa, here - which I'd expected would be a great dramatic climax - turns out to be the dampest of squibs. I didn't actually realise anything had happened, until a reference a couple of minutes later made it clear that the Gorgon had indeed been defeated. My original three star estimate is now hovering closer to two and a half.

My earlier comments about costumes weren't quite right - the ladies are indeed clothed in what seem to be C17th dresses, but the men's costumes might best be described as seventeeth-century-plus; there's a sort of heroic shimmery veneer to what they're wearing, presumably befitting 17th century superheroes.
 
#14 ·
Continuing from my last post ....

Things do liven up a bit in the last two acts; there's some spectacular dancing, again, involving swords; and we discover that Perseus is capable of all sorts of acrobatics (Perseus wears a mask when he's out adventurin', so they can use a stand-in very effectively). The tableau at the end is certainly one of the highlights of the opera in terms of spectacle: I'll try to get a screenshot and post it here.

But despite all this, the overall impressions are of wooden acting, with everyone trying too hard, and the eccentricities of the sound balance become quite wearing after a while (which of course is the responsibility of the recording engineers, not the singers). Two and a half stars, rather than three, in my book.
 
#26 · (Edited)
OK, folks, I've finished this:



I'm aware that everybody here went berserk about it, and all other reviews in other sites can't stop praising it.

I'll be the discordant voice.

I wasn't highly impressed, including because I paid $51.50 and sincerely, it's not worth the price; at least, not for me.

I understand that they went to all possible lengths to reproduce as exactly as possible how this same opera was performed for the royal family on April 29, 1673. Period instruments of course, primitive stage props like they were done at the time (basically, painted cardboard), even the lighting was done entirely with candles. French was spoken just like in 1673 with different pronunciation of diphthongs, and no cutting off of the sound of the final letter when the word ends in -s, -x, -z, or -t. Gesticulation was baroque. Make-up and costumes were carefully researched. Singers would park and bark because that's what they did at the time (and face the audience, i.e. the king, rather than each other when they were engaged in a dialogue). Ballets were the silly light thing that was favored at the time.

But I'll tell you, life as a king then must have been pretty boring. And I'm not sure I want to be bored to death just like the king.

Oh yes, the costumes were beautiful. So?

The ancient French pronunciation, to tell you the truth, soon lost its appeal and became pretty annoying. And it sounded fake as well, since often the singers who are of course contemporary French speakers would forget to stick with the old pronunciation, which then would pop up off and on.

And Lully, truth most be told, is not the most dynamic and varied opera composer. He's rather stiff. After 8 minutes (no kidding) of constant repetition of the phrase "amants fidèles, soyez heureux," (dully pronounced amanttttsssss, soyezzzzzz, heureuxxxxxx) I was about to shout "OK, by now they must have understood that you Gods want them to be happy, just quit repeating it please and move on!"

I got this question in my mind: is it really a good idea to stage an opera exactly as it was in the 17th century (especially an opera this long, with one prologue and five acts)? Sure, there is some merit in transporting us back then, and some effect of curiosity in seeing how it was done in the royal courts, but once the novelty wears thin, what's left?

I recently quoted a stage director saying - "Why should we mimic exactly what was done in the past? When people go to the movies nowadays to watch a recent production, they don't expect to see grainy black and white silent movies. We could dress the Rhinemaidens exactly as Wagner did for the first time at Bayreuth, but they'd look horrible!"

OK, this 17th century staging was interesting for a while, but I think I prefer my baroque operas slightly updated (without anything outrageous, regietheater style, but still, slightly updated) like in the recent outstanding production of Les Indes Galantes. That one got the right balance between ancient and new, and wasn't boring at all.

Complete fidelity to the original when the original is this removed in time can actually, let's be frank, yield a rather boring result.

I'm sure I'll be under attack for this opinion, people will say "when you look at a medieval painting you don't mind it being ancient and authentic" etc. Still, I was about to fall asleep during this Cadmus et Hermione (I think I actually did nap a little during the second act. It is true that acts III and IV were less boring... but act V was boring again). Sorry guys, I know you guys loved it, but... I just couldn't relate.

And now I regret my $51.50!!!
 
#27 ·
is it really a good idea to stage an opera exactly as it was in the 17th century (especially an opera this long, with one prologue and five acts)? Sure, there is some merit in transporting us back then, and some effect of curiosity in seeing how it was done in the royal courts, but once the novelty wears thin, what's left? ...

I'm sure I'll be under attack for this opinion, people will say "when you look at a medieval painting you don't mind it being ancient and authentic" etc. Still, I was about to fall asleep during this Cadmus et Hermione (I think I actually did nap a little during the second act. It is true that acts III and IV were less boring... but act V was boring again). Sorry guys, I know you guys loved it, but... I just couldn't relate.
It's not a matter of you being under attack - after all, you paid your money and were bored stiff and you've a right to moan about that as much as you want, and I for one will certainly sympathise. But I don't believe this was a misguided production. After all, some of us would be seriously bereft if this had never been made. Speaking purely personally, I rate it as a contender for the the title of 'finest opera DVD I own', and I don't experience any boredom at all when watching it.

I think if the idea of a window in time doesn't attract you, then sure, this production will lose a good deal, and obviously the attempt to open one in this way will seem misguided. But I love the idea of being able, just for a couple of hours, to shut out the 21st century and try to get as close to the 17th century experience as I can. What I most value about art of all kinds is that it allows me to taste experiences, and see things, and feel things, that I couldn't achieve unaided. Obviously in the case of an historical 'recreation' like this, it's an unattainable ideal. There'll be all sorts of loose ends, as you've spotted. But still, this is as good a try as we're ever going to see: realistically, we can't expect a better attempt, and I think we have to give the producers all credit for that. If the result doesn't appeal, I don't think it's because of the small blemishes in the authenticity of the production.

So it really comes down to whether what entertained the Sun King will entertain us - and in your case it clearly doesn't. But again, I don't think it's the production's fault. I've never seen, for example, mere gesture used so expressively, nor so compellingly. I think the sets are exquisitely beautiful in their own right, regardless of their historical authenticity (though I admit it's quite hard to separate the aesthetic from the historical appeal). And I love Lully's music. He isn't Rameau: he's not, as you say, adventurous, but he's in the spirit of his time; and for me, the combination of the music, and the sets, and the plot, and the costumes, all go together to make a near-perfect whole.

I think what I'm trying to say is that although you've wasted your money (and since I've been an ardent advocate of this production I'm really sorry about that), I don't think the DVD is in some way poor or deficient. It's just an unhappy and regrettable clash between the purchased and the purchaser.
 
#30 ·


Well, I'm relieved that my impressions are a lot more positive than Alan's. I've just finished watching this DVD and I loved it. Alan had resevations about the sound, but I didn't notice anything wrong. Maybe he has a faulty disc or something (???), like I suspect I have a faulty disc of Verdi's "Luisa Miller."

I think the production is wonderful and there aren't any mediocre singers in the cast either. The dancing was very good also, especially the fencing scene in the last act. I agree with Alan that the Medussa was just a clown instead of being scary, and that you hardly even notice that Persée cuts of his head. And they left out the prologue praising the King with which Lully always opens his operas. But those are really the only negative things I can say about it. Overall I think this is excellent stuff.
 
#31 ·
Well, I'm relieved that my impressions are a lot more positive than Alan's. I've just finished watching this DVD and I loved it. Alan had resevations about the sound, but I didn't notice anything wrong. Maybe he has a faulty disc or something (???)
I'm glad it turned out so well for you. My problems with the sound were basically related to balance: the volumes of male and female voices relative to each other and to the orchestra - I don't think it's a faulty disc issue. And I think the acting is decidely wooden and unconvincing, but this may be merely a personal response to a particular style (witness the difference of opinion about the acting in the Washington La Rondine). I think also, at the time I wrote that review I was hoping for another Cadmus, and very decidedly not getting one.
 
#35 · (Edited)
Lully: Armide on blu-ray

Given what Gaston said that I'm not much of a Lully fan, I'm giving him another chance.
Maybe it's a question of the right conductor/band and the right staging, because William Christie and Les Arts Florissants don't usually misfire, so it is with optimism that I approach this one:



Hang on, I'm starting it now, full review to follow. Good start, I must say - very entertaining prologue with the usual tribute to the king of early French baroque opera done in a very imaginative manner.

Very spectacular use of video, projected in high definition on the stage, with scenes of the Versailles palace of which singers and chorus participate, and they break into dance. Oh boy, I'll be liking this, I'm sure.

From the pit the usual competent, full, rich playing on period instruments from Les Arts Florrissants and Christie are a pleasure to hear. The images and sounds on this blu-ray are top notch. Technically perfect.

Next the dancers, after having visited the King's chamber, rush to the gorgeous gardens and dance on lawns and fountains. All very visually appealing. This production has managed to make of this very, very, very long prologue (23 minutes) something very enjoyable - which would not have happened if they had just played it in the theater.

One of the tourists sneaks into the King's bed, falls asleep, dreams, and the opera itself starts. Clever. We're back at the theater, we see Armide's bed, and it looks similar to Louis XIV's, except that it is all in silver. She wakes up, dressed on a sexy bright red night gown. Wow. She sings wonderfully (Stéphanie d'Oustrac). Hidraot enters the scene (Nathan Berg - he's OK). Claire Debono and Isabelle Druet do an excellent job during the prologue and Act I, in the multiple roles of respectively La Gloire / Phénice / Lucinde, and La Sagesse / Sidonie / Mélisse.

Act II, we get to meet Renaud (Paul Agnew - excellent singer) - it turns out that he is the tourist that had fallen asleep during the prologue. Artémidore is Marc Callahan, he's OK. Stéphanie continues to steal the scene with her impressive acting, strange beauty, and formidable singing. She calls up all the devils, and the dancers who were wearing silver clothing strip out of them and they all have bright red dresses underneath. What a clever effect, again. Gee, these folks are so talented! Christie and his troupe always put together these outstanding performances!

By now, it is already clear that this product is highly recommended. I'll pause soon for a grilled meal (it's the 4th of July) and will be back for acts III, IV, and V.

Act III: amazing. Very beautiful, again, both for the music, staging, and the opera itself.

Act IV: If all the numerous assets above weren't enough to earn my admiration, now we have one of the most striking displays of female nudity in opera - with a very beautiful dancer entirely naked, dancing for several minutes on stage, made more sexy by some veils and curtains, but displaying quite enough to make a (grown) boy like me very happy.:D

---

After lunch, final touches: Act V just as good, great finale. Excellent opera, better than the one I had as my Lully favorite (Atys), and it is packed in a very satisfactory product.
Some details I hadn't mentioned yet (this review has been less structured than my usual one):
2008, live, Théâtre des Champs-Elysées, staging (excellent) by Robert Carsen. DTS 5.1, LPCM, subtitles in French, English, German, Italian, and Spanish. All regions. Running time 168 minutes. Insert impeccable with gorgeous pictures, synopsis, track list with duration and characters. Extras include a documentary - Armide à Versailles - with insightful interviews about Lully, the baroque, Armide, its historical importance, its impact on the history of French opera, featuring Christie, Carsen, and two of the administrators of Versailles (31 minutes). Just perfect.

Buy it! Buy it! Buy it!
 
#36 ·
Thanks Alma - I read this with some excitement - another Lully! I wondered if there was any of it on youtube. Yes. There is! Lots and lots. And that's how my excitement gradually fizzled out. The disillusion started with the modern tourists wandering about in the audience, and although it's true that things did look better after that, I still find myself faced with my usual problem, which I shall try to state as clearly as I can: if we're going to go to enormous pains to make sure that what we hear sounds authentic, with period instruments, then what artistic criterion is it that suggests that what we see is under no such constraint? Those costumes, those sets, are inescapably modern, and the drift towards a kind of abstraction in the sets doesn't make the anachronism any less. So we have this continual jarring, of what we hear (superb C17th music) against what we see (visuals that are continually at anachronistic war with the sounds). What hope can there be of preserving any kind of artistic unity in that?

I understand that it can be enjoyable (and I see and believe that you really did enjoy it Alma); but it actually causes me pain to watch this. Not just once, but all the time, minute after continuing minute, as the sights and sounds battle against each other. Anyone would think we were flooded with wonderful period performances of French baroque operas; but there are hardly any, and it's quite heartbreaking.

In case anyone jumps in at this point and accuses me of being stick-in-the-mud, let me make it quite clear that my grumble has nothing to do with pedantry and period pernickertiness. It's about artistic unity. Or rather, my inability to perceive any, here.
 
#37 ·
The tourists and the Versailles scenes were just a clever way to do away with the boredom of all the God Save the King kind of mandatory prologue for Louis XIV's court. Poor Lully had to do it, and obviously when he gets going with the opera itself, it gets a lot better.

I have no problem with the fact that Christie's band plays period instruments but the stagings he associates himself with are modern. It's just a question of sounds, in my opinion. The delicacy of the period instruments are a good match for the vocal writing of baroque operas, because modern orchestras tend to smother the singers of early baroque. So, Christie using HIP is just as appropriate as a soprano that tries to sing well the notes written for her.

The staging for this Armide is strikingly beautiful, visually speaking. The music is beautiful. We get talented singers/actors. What else do we need? Again, nothing is outrageous after we get passed the prologue - OK, some may object to the nude woman (I wouldn't, of course!) but it does make sense in the story - remember, it's a seduction scene, it's a devil assuming the form of a woman to tempt the warriors.

The unity is in the fact that as modern as the staging is, certain props make the link between the present and the past - have you noticed how Armide's silvery room is modeled upon Louis XIV's golden-tinted room?

I hear you and others here (e.g. Gualtier) who believe that the ancient music needs ancient settings. Sure, some of those are good. But for me, what is important is the artistic beauty of the setting, and the fact that the director treats the material with respect, without changing important aspects of the story or shoving some heavy symbolism (that wasn't there before) down our throats. These blunders don't happen in this Armide - although, to be honest, yes, the director makes her kill herself at the end while in the original she flies away in an aerial cart. Yes, I'd have prefered Lully's ending even though her killing herself makes more sense, dramatically, but I consider all tampering to be distasteful. But other than for that bit of regie at the very end, this production is beautiful and respectful, which for me is more important than whether it is with period or modern costumes/settings.

Sometimes we get period costumes but big time disrespect - like a Faust staged by Ken Russell that had the most outrageous changed ending.

For me, a production like this one that tells the story coherently with gorgeous playing and singing gets my endorsement.
 
#38 ·
I guess we've been down these perceptional byways before, and as always it's a matter of puzzlement to one party when the other regards the very same work from an entirely opposite view point. To me, this is like putting a Watteau in a sleek stainless steel picture frame. Nothing wrong with either the picture or the frame, but together... oh.

The main reason for my bleating, though, surely has good grounds. We have no end of these fanciful modernised interpretative productions of Baroque opera, and so very, very few that show a genuine sympathy for or understanding of the period. And even when we do get that, Alma (such as the ultra-traditional Dumestre Cadmus & Hermione) we respond in very different ways. We can't expect much consensus in this area, it seems.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top