Madama Butterfly

Thanks to our good friend Lorenzo, Lilia had an extra ticket for Madama Butterfly. I volunteered to go (not the whole truth). You may not believe this but this is not my first opera but neither will it be my third.

This review is a bit of a departure from my usual cinematic critiques. I will be talking about the plot so I do not want to hear the usual wimpy compliant “Oh, he’s giving away the plot”. Opera plots tend to be a bit simple: someone falls in love, lots of happy singing; someone falls out of love, lots of sad singing; someone dies, usually the chick. To put some meat on the bone, Madama B was an ex Geisha who was married to Lieutenant Pinkerton, an American. They have a child. For Pinkerton this is a marriage of his convenience. When he sails away Madama B is filled with anxiety, and with good reason. When Pinkerton returns after three years he comes with a blond American wife intending to take away his child. Consumed with sadness and shame Madama B commits seppuku.

I feel woefully inadequate to comment on the singing, but what the hell. I did not think the tenor who played Pinkerton had a strong voice. He was no Domingo and the role of Pinkerton may have been too demanding for him (he is from New Jersey, that bastion of operatic excellence). As for the soprano, Kristine Opolias, she was great. Her arias were well suited for the role.  Her arias were not the thunder clap of Brunnhilde, rather they were proportionate to the role. Some guy screaming BRAVA behind me, gave her a resounding endorsement. So much for decorum. From a picture in “Play Bill” she looks like a hot babe. I can’t wait for the next issue of Maxim Does Opera.

The set production was outstanding. The set was minimalist in keeping with the Japanese motif. White shoji paper screens were effectively used to move actors and change sceneries. They could have used some color to break up the blandness of the white paper. Paper lanterns were used to change locals from the harbor to the village. A shower of cherry blossom petals rained down from the rafters creating a dream like effect.

A wonderful treat was the Bunraku puppeteers. This is a very old Japanese puppeteering tradition. The puppeteers wear black, like Ninjas but without star daggers. They manually manipulate the puppet on stage without strings. You are not supposed to see them, but I did. The child puppet was handled in this manner and in a dream sequence and so was a mini Madama B.

That’s it, feel spent. I think I maxed out on culture for 2014. See you at the movies.

Noah

This film is a mish mash of movie genres; fantasy, sci-fi, adventure and Bible stories. The problem is which reference point do you use? In a sci fi movie like Star Wars you have no problem accepting a Wookie, a Death Star or a guy with a fish head playing a clarinet in a dive since your reference point is sci fi. In Noah, no matter how hedonistic you may be, your reference is the Bible. When fantastic creatures are on screen they are just incongruent. Bible stories themselves have elements of fantasy but there is a commonality to them. The fantasy in this movie falls outside of that commonality. When I saw the Watchers (fantasy creatures), I sat up and said “what the heck” (I did not say heck, I said something else). I guess the writers could not get beyond spit balling the script.

Russell Crowe does not look like a 500 year old pre flood patriarch, rather he looks like He-Man. He has on going battles with the bad guy king Tubal-Cain played by Ray Winston; a British actor who is basically a thug with an Equity card. All the actors are very good. This is about the third time Jennifer Connelly is married to Russell Crowe on screen. Antony Hopkins, Methuselah, is Noah’s grandfather and does some wizardry with Emma Watson (go figure) who is Noah’s adopted daughter. Methuselah gives Noah magic beans (sounds familiar) to get the Ark started.

The Ark looks like a failed wood shop project. It is a long tar covered rectangular box of logs and timber. The animals came two by two, or so they say. Then Noah’s family goes throughout the Ark with incents putting the animals to sleep. Fortunately humans are not affected. This biblical anesthetic is complemented by iron, bamboo, tea, gun powder and iron pipes all in the same time line. Even fantasy needs some rationale and order. The writers never heard of PBS.

Towards the latter part of the story the film focuses on solid dramatic acting without gimmicks. It is a key climatic moment and very well done. Is it that well done to carry the film? I would not go so far. In the end to legitimize the film the writers steal two sub plots directly from the Bible. Noah is seen picking grapes and getting drunken from his five day old wine. In the Bible Noah is the first drunk. The script alludes to the Curse of Ham (Ham is Noah’s son) but it needs to be more revealing (see Genesis 9:20). It is odd that a movie so divergent wants to end on the right side of God. May be sacrificing the writers is justified?