User Reviews

Rameau's operas are difficult to produce on a stage because of the enormous presence of musical intermezzos that are, in fact, supposed to be danced, hence a plain opera turns into a nearly full-time ballet. William Christie goes to the extreme of having dancing practically all the time. At the same time, since this opera is empty of any kind of real action or plot, the stage has to be "dramatized" and modern technique with a little bit of Artificial Intelligence enables the back of the stage to become a three-tiered vertical stage with action at all levels, even if on the second and third levels it is a lot of projection of images, ballet dancing or simple animation. That fills up the stage with so much action with dozens and dozens of dancers, multiplied at times by being captured at the lower level and projected at the second level or even the third. The back of the stage is a three-tiered backdrop with several slits opening at every level that enable dancers to come in and out. And what's more, Christie does not hesitate and have all the animals of the Vincennes zoo parading or running at second and third levels, from lions to elephants (small elephants actually), one giant gorilla or chimpanzee, and a lot, an enormous collection of peacocks, opening and closing their tails, popping in and fading out constantly.

So, I just wonder if I am supposed to cover this opera as a ballet or as a dramatic construction. As a ballet, it is great because the choreographer uses absolutely all possible styles of dancing from the most classical to the most modern, plus street dancing, breakdance, hip hop, and probably a lot more than that like jazz, rock-and-roll, and maybe some exotic styles scattered all over. That makes this dancing original. It is not a simple ballet that is supposed to have some unity. It is not what Broadway would produce in New York because this dancing is so "disorganized-looking" with dancers running in all directions in perfect coordination, of course, not to run into one another but no general coordination among all the dancers in their movements and steps, though with couples or at times triplets of dancers dancing together for a short episode there is some, before running away in all directions. The impression you get is that love, since we are speaking of love, is the most hectic, crazy, corrugated activity you can imagine. You just follow all opportunities and adventures. Jealousy and possessiveness are excluded, and the jealous lovers will be punished. In a way, it corresponds to France under Louis XV when the country was possessed by the desire to live, to think, to question, to challenge everything and all authorities, including the King, and it is shown here as being the same as in Charleston times. After the end of Louis XIV's reign kept sad and joyless by the last and lasting mistress of the King, France was living a full liberation that produced the Enlightenment. Strangely enough, the French stage is not as crowded with authors as it used to be, and only, essentially, two names come up, Marivaux and Rameau. Both are centered on love (like in this opera) and always the idea that love is beautiful, but it has to be proved true and real, faithful and respectful. And that is difficult, isn't it?

Christie adds something to this vision or rather uses what Marivaux used over and over again, and he manages to make the goddess of love be a man, and thus have some gay scenes with this transvestite male goddess. In the same way, it is difficult to make sure all couples dancing together for ten or twenty measures are all a man and a woman. But who cares? A little bit of nudity is added to titillate the spectators who might be going to sleep since nothing happens in this plot. You have to titillate or tickle people where it is most effective, and in their lurid sex-driven impulses, it is more than most effective. It gives their mind and attention some immediate morning-wood.

Then you have to wonder about the music which is very classical and slightly baroque or vice versa, French 18th century in one word. We can't say there are too many notes because that has been said about Mozart, but we definitely can say it has ingurgitated too many vitamins, and probably a lot of aphrodisiac juices and pills because the rhythm, tempo, density, lightness, and even the energizing power of this music are amazing. No slow romantic dull and sad moments. Only a conductor and his musicians whipping you along in case you may be dreaming away. And you better follow. Yet the plot is so vacuous and void that it does not fulfill any mission on this theater-stage. In fact, frankly, who cares about the plot? It is then funny to have an old lover who is deprived of the young woman he loves, or desires, made to fall in love with the goddess of love who is a man in drag. It is also funny to have a few naked dancers now and then, very shy, and modest about it, but naked all the same. Only one is not modest at all since he is covering his nudity with a big Valentine's heart that turns around him as he is spinning on the stage till, of course, after a while the expectations of all alert people in the audience are satisfied and the body turns faster than the heart and he is facing the audience, as nude as a hairless egg, though he is not hairless.

Apart from the very beautiful music, this opera is nothing, but entertainment multiplied by all the tricks the producers could find to make it even more entertaining, reaching distraction in no time. We are in Paris, in Châtelet Theater. So, it is perfect since they all are corrugated in Paris, and this is a presentable non-sexual show that can compete with Crazy Horse or Le Moulin Rouge, at least in modesty.

Dr. Jacques COULARDEAU