New York City Opera – Strauss’s Capriccio 9/10/2005

New York State Theater at Lincoln Center – First Tier, Seat B23.

Conductor: George Manahan; Flamand – Ryan MacPherson, Olivier – Mel Ulrich, Countess – Pamela Armstrong.

Story: This opera explores if words or music is the greater art form. The Countess was in love with Flamand the composer and Olivier the poet. She couldn’t decide and therefore asked the two men to write an opera and she would pick the finale of the one she chose.

This was the first concert we were attending for the 2005/2006 season. My expectations were high after reading up on the opera at the NYC Opera website. Capriccio was Strauss’s last (15th) opera and considered by him to be his best. I came away quite disappointed for two reasons. The opera, a comedy, didn’t live up to the billing. (Warning: if you don’t want the ending spoiled, skip the next sentence.) Also, the question of which is the higher art form wasn’t answered.

This was the first Strauss opera I saw. The only other exposure I have had of his operas was what the last part of Salome I caught on TV, which I found quite fascinating. NYC Opera sets appear to be more elaborate compared to those of a few years ago when I first started going. The set for this opera even had a moving stage in Act 2. There were also many scenes where the wait staff kept rearranging chairs for apparently no good reason, but was quite amusing.

Part I began with an overture that sounded like a string ensemble. It was a nice piece, but a bit on the long side. I was also pleased with the acoustics of the theater – did NYC Opera work to improve it during the off season? Clairon, the object of affection of the Count, had a rather wobbly vocal entrance, although she improved during the show.

There was a play within the opera which I found a bit too affected. The laughter of the audience was at time more due to embarrassment than amusement. At this point I thought the opera was quite disjoint and lacked a clear direction.

In addition to weighing the relative merits of music and words, the opera throws in other forms of art including acting, singing and dance. There was a ballet interlude that is quite pleasant to watch (it even borders on being funny at times). But the question of “why?” kept popping up in my mind. Similarly, the aria sung by the bel canto Italian singers was pleasant enough but didn’t add much to the opera.

Part I ended with the Countess deciding on an important thing: serving chocolate at the party. This reminds me of Scarlett’s famous line in Gone with the Wind: “I can’t think about that right now … I’ll think about that tomorrow.” I am sure the sale of candy was quite brisk during the intermission!

Part II was more enjoyable than Part I. It had a mad scene where everyone was on stage. I counted the waitstaff, the principals, the ballet dances, the director, a couple of Roman soldiers, Roman royalty (well, they could be Greek), and the Italian singers. It was choreographed nicely enough, but wasn’t very funny.

About an hour into Part II, there was an orchestral interlude at the conclusion of which the stage got a bit surreal. The color turned mostly gold, with the Countess asking herself, and the mirror, which man/art form she should pick. At one point I was sure the images of Flamand and Olivier appeared for a while. How did they do that?

The opera concluded with the Countess deciding on what to eat for supper. By this time I had already given up on a definite opinion from the composer, but was still surprised at the non-climax which few, if any, in the audience found funny.

I don’t speak French, Italian, and had only one year of German in college. One would think the language the opera was sung in won’t bother me a bit. I have heard the recording of The Flying Dutchman, and it was okay. I have heard Bizet’s and Thomas’s operas in French, and they sounded marvelous. For some reason I found this opera (in German) a little awkward.

The premise of the opera is interesting enough, but the composer and the librettist wouldn’t answer the questions they posed, and couldn’t make a true comedy out of the subject matter either. There were many elements that could have been woven together into an interesting whole, but I don’t think they succeeded. Capriccio doesn’t appear to be a popular opera (one proof: not that many relevant Google references). There are many operas I would want to see again to get a deeper appreciation, not this one.

See also the New York Times review of this opera. It also explains why there were all these references to Gluck which escaped me.