The serious Wagnerian can travel the world, add hotel costs to already seriously expensive theatre tickets, feed the obsession. Most of us wait for a Cycle to come to our local opera house and hope for the best. Having thus waited, it seems somewhat unchivalrous to criticise. It is, after all, so seldom one has a chance to see a decent production of Der Ring des Nibelungen. The seriously hungry do not criticise an inappropriate garnish on the plate, the lonely person finding affection does no complain when the sex is less than perfect.

 ....

Varery Gergiev brought his Mariinsky Opera production of the Ring to ROH, Covent Garden last week and it was not well received. The production had previously had a poor showing in Cardiff and changes had been made. I was only able to get tickets for the last of the four consecutive nights to see for myself. The ticket was a present to my wife and me; my gift was to see Götterdämmerung, hers was to not see Götterdämmerung. I enjoyed it most thoroughly, though not uncritically. You can perhaps judge who, of wife and I, got the better gift.

 ....

Wagner saw himself as a man of the theatre who wrote music. I learned music form an early age but now spend a great deal of my time on matters theatrical. So let us deal with the drama backdrop for the music rather than the music behind the drama first. The Ring is timeless, of legend, of Wagner’s day, of our own and of the future. Wagner may have been a rebel, an innovator in music theatre and inspired the building of the most revolutionary opera house of his day, but for years the staging, costumes and interpretations were traditional and reverentially conservative. It only changed with grandson Wieland Wagner’s reinvention of Bayreuth, after a decent break following its long and toxic association with Hitler. Wieland took a lesson from the legacy of Berlin’s Kroll Opera and the group who formed around Klemperer; he stripped the surplus fat from the work, ignored long-standing assumptions and traditions, allowed the music and drama to be experienced as if they were new. The monster of a work now loosed from its restraints, this bold move also created a new tradition, the freedom to reinterpret, for any director to create Wagner in his (they are, as far as I am aware, only men) own image. We have thus, in addition to the nihilism that Wagner injected through his hero-worship of Schopenhauer, readings that privilige Existentialism, we have Marxist Rings, Sci-Fi Rings, themes of anti-racism, ecology, anti-corporatism, pacifism, feminism. The story and characters, drawn from legend and developed by Wagner, are strong enough to shine through most of these windows of interpretation. Thus we have become at ease with the blurring of the line between heroes and villains; having Wotan, rather than Hunding, killing Siegmund; an Act 2 Siegfried pairing of identically dressed Alberich and Wotan; taking the step beyond the scripted incest in Die Walküre of Siegmund and Sieglinde to a suggestive physical desire between father and daughter Wotan and Brünnhilde; of Rhine Maiden whores at a hydroelectric power station or pole-dancers in a sleazy nightclub. I have seen the Ring staged well, staged badly and staged in a way that works best on the radio. The only rule, as far as this Wagnerian is concerned, is that the interpretation should not get in the way of the music.

 ....

Valery Gergiev’s production, by the time it reached Götterdämmerung, looked interesting. There were some innovative touches from the start, such as the Norns’ rope of fate being composed of linked people. The last scene continued the idea of human scenery in the waters of Rhine being pushed in and out in a scrim balloon. There were enormous scenery Flower Pot Men who framed the action, changed position between scenes and sometimes shone light from their heads. At some point the Flower Pot Men were joined by what looked like giant jelly babies. I do not have a clue what these items were intended to portray, but they clearly meant something. There was a rough square centre stage that, in possible homage to Wieland Wagner’s ring/disc that I saw in the 1960s. It was raised, lowered, tilted, formed a roof or, another time, a floor, and became the focus for much of the action. The costumes were Prince Igor meets the (original) Rite of Spring, and none the worst for that.

 ....

The music was mostly very well played. The orchestra is a fine one and has spent enough years working with this conductor to be able to tackle anything, even the fourth consecutive day of the Ring, with the right combination of power and beauty. There were a few overblown notes but otherwise fine playing and an intelligent and relaxed reading. The singers, with the exception of the Brünnhilde, sang and acted well. The Alberich was particularly strong and it is a tribute to the Hagen’s overall portrayal in that, though his voice was smaller than we usually expect for this most taxing bass role, their Act 2 duet was perfectly balanced. The Siegfried and Gunther were strong both vocally and dramatically, each bringing out the reality of what are, after all, two very annoying characters. Waltraute, the Brünnhilde of a previous evening was striking and the Gutrune sufficiently delightful that you could forgive Siegfried for leaving his weaker-voiced wife for her. Both the trios, Norn and Rhinemaiden, gave exactly what was expected of them to great effect and the chorus was also in fine voice.

 ....

So what, apart from a disappointing leading lady, was wrong? I have already mentioned that I enjoyed it, and not only in the light of my relative deprivation of Wagner’s magnum opus. I have to admit to being shocked at the sloppiness of the production, of its carelessness, lack of attention to detail and poor use of what might otherwise have been an interesting interpretation. The Norns’ human rope was a good idea; having the humans get up and run from side to side of the stage, reminiscent of the bridge in a Klingon attack in Star Trek, pointless and distracting. The Norns’ music does not indicate running, and so why should there be running onstage? When Wagner wanted running from side to side, he wrote the appropriate music for it. The presence of Gibichung chorus was seemingly random; they were there for Siegfried’s walking about on his Rhine journey but disappeared when Siegfried arrived at their territory; they were there when Hagen stabbed Siegfried, rudely disappeared while he was singing his final farewell but came back in anticipation of forming the funeral procession; they had carried and placed the body and were long gone before Hagen told Gutrune of the corpse that they were about to bring home; they were absent when Hagen and Gunther declared to them their conflicting claims and fought over the ring, still not there to cry out in shock when Siegfried’s dead arm was raised in threat to Hagen; they did not come to bring material for the funeral pyre when Brünnhilde asked, though they did take it upon themselves to arrive to drag off Gunther’s body. And why was Siegfried walking about on his Rhine journey? The libretto speaks of a boat at the beginning and end of the journey, the music suggests water and so there should be a boat or the suggestion of a boat, lacking a boat there should be the suggestion of water. Or nothing; if it can’t be shown, we can close our eyes. The music does not suggest walking in crowds and so there should be none. Some things that should have happened were just left out; Siegfried’s dead arm does not raise to Hagen. Hagen, he of the fine portrayal in a full-length Hun skirt and Nosferatu malevolence, did not enter or give the final line of the Ring and meet his watery end at the hands of the Rhinemaidens. Even worse, there was no fire at the end and thus no indication of the burning of Siegfried’s body, the cleansing of the ring through fire prior to its reclaiming by the Rhinemaidens, no destruction of Gibichung Hall, no flames reaching and consuming Valhalla and, as clearly stated in the music and crucially shown by the opera’s title, the end of the gods. Brünnhilde, in the absence of fire, gave no indication of human sacrifice at all and just strolled off backstage. Synchronisation of action and music were haphazard, even random. Siegfried’s funeral music, a mainly a self-contained musical interlude, was played well and aerated with good pauses, but there are but three consecutive chords that signify a specific stage action, namely the raising of the corpse. This was ignored. Why? The pall-bearers picked him up eventually, so why not at the time that the music told them to? Worst of all, Brünnhilde’s final entry (Schweigt eures Jammers), immediately following the non-raising of Siegfried’s arm, was delayed by four lines. The singer was not even on the stage, let alone in position. Amateur companies seldom stage Wagner, but if they did they would get the leading lady onstage in time for the scene that is, after all, quite important and the culmination of everything that has gone before over four evenings. Poor synchronisation, haphazard or seemingly random action, people coming in when they shouldn’t and, including the leading player, not being there to sing the notes when you need them? These are not the accusations you would expect to be put before an orchestral conductor, of all people. And yet, for all my admiration of Gergiev’s conducting, these are the very crimes I lay at his door.

 ....

It could have been so much better, and it would not have been so very difficult to fix. The company would not have cast the Brünnhilde unless she was a singer capable of doing justice to an absurdly difficult role. Leading ladies are only human and thus are subject to human frailty and sickness. That is why, in all levels of theatre, we have understudies. Assuming the Waltraute to be such an understudy, she would have been up to the task, and her understudy could have sung Waltraute and that major problem would have been solved. The rest would be down to looking at the why and when of the staging. If fire, water, raised hands, movement or lack of it, chorus onstage or off is called for, then do it. It has been a while since a horse has appeared on the Wagnerian boards, but most stage and lighting directions can now be followed or suggested by theatrical, mechanical, lighting effects or video projection with great accuracy and effect. If something is omitted, it should be for a good dramatic reason, also bearing in mind the closeness of the relationship between drama and music. If something is added this should be justified not only in the context of the overall production but in relation to the originally directed action and the music. The importance of Wagner’s leitmotivs may be subject to occasional dispute, but when music associated with the Rhine, fire, Valhalla sound out, we want to see something that reinforces the music, not contests it. The theme was sounded of a heavenly force acting through the dead Siegfried, Hagen looked at the arm, it did not raise, it stayed dead; what stopped him from taking the ring? The required “audience” of Gibichungs were not there to see it not happen. It wouldn’t have taken much more than the raising of this metaphoric arm to raise an interesting but highly flawed production, to attend to the detail and please future audiences. The production has been touring for several years and so they must have had these criticisms made known to them. I wonder what my wife, a Wagnerphobe but quite a fan of Valery Gergiev, would have made of it?   

The anniversary of a great scientist is a cause for celebration but why should it be controversial?

Many people believe in one or other religion, honour supreme beings, carry out rituals and attempt to follow the teachings and lifestyles of holy books. That, for them, is a matter of faith. I know of no scientist who would mock, threaten or abuse religious practitioners for their convictions. Why should believers feel so insecure and endangered by science that they would dispute the evidence of their own eyes, promise hellfire and damnation to those who do not share their opinions and, in rare cases, go to the extreme of threatening scientists with violence?

Science works on facts, demands repetitious tests for proof before theories are accepted and, even then, deep-rooted received ideas can be adjusted or replaced as and when new evidence arises. A good scientist should trust the methodology but be open-minded about the results and conclusions. Both evolution and the theory of gravity were based upon or replaced earlier models. Einstein filled in the gaps not available for observation by Newton and evolution theory is now augmented by Mendel’s information on genetics that had not been known to Darwin. Science, with the exception of geology, is not set in stone.

Religion and science clashing on principles may be a matter of opinion but it is never one of fact. Followers of religions who "deny" Darwin" have a point of view but they have no argument. Mythology, however widely followed, is no match for truth. Millions of believers in creation by a supernatural being (or the creationism-light pseudo-science of intelligent design) cannot, by their very numbers, change truth or show reality to be false. Science is not democratic because most of us are not scientists. That being said, anyone can observe the variations in dog breeding and propose that a husky might best suited to survive Arctic conditions or that a poodle would do poorly at hunting wolves. Religious leaders are in a similar minority to scientists, though lay observation of scriptural lessons are less easily open to repetition. The recent UK poll, in which a third of the population accept the theory of natural selection, merely highlights the apathy or ignorance of the remaining two-thirds.

Not all refutation of holy text currently meets with outraged argument. The long-held idea of a flat earth, widely suggested in those same holy texts that propose spontaneous creation, is now generally discredited. Gregor Mendel, the Augustinian monk whose independent observations identified the mechanics that drove evolution, has never been subject to the same level of disbelief or abuse. It is a mere nine years since the Catholic church apologised for the excommunication (in his and their belief, to damn in hell) of Galileo. His crime was the heresy of observing and stating in public that, contrary to those same creationist texts, the planetary system was heliocentric. Charles Darwin, still subject to dispute by those seeking to deny what is demonstrably true, may still have to wait for his 400th birthday to find full acceptance of his work.

A British teacher in Sudan has been found guilty of insulting religion and sentenced to 15 days in prison for naming a Teddy Bear after a pupil, who happened to be called Mohammad. She was naive, to put it mildly, but naïvety is not a crime in any civilised, respectable country. And, lets face it, if Mohammad (pbuh) was as great as he is made out to be he would think such a punishment to be an insult to his good name.

Sudan? This is in the country where genocide is a way of life, where 2 million people have been systematically driven from their homes through murder, rape and intimidation. How many people in Sudan have been convicted of murder, rape or intimidation. No, really, I'd like to know.

Despite my personal lack of faith I have often acted as a referee, attempting to get others to show respect for the beliefs of those around them. In so doing my lack of faith in mythological beings has been frequently reinforced by the lack of respect that followers of these mythologies show to their fellow beings.

Just for once I am going to show disrespect. In tribute to Sudan and in solidarity with that teacher, I am going to name my arse Mohammad. In case any Muslims think I am picking on them I am happy to announce that my bollocks will henceforth be known as Jesus and Christ and, in case Judaism should feel marginalized, my prick is now Yahweh.

I will be happy to revoke these appellations and reinstate respect for those who respect religion just as soon as someone upholding one or other of those religions can start to show a bit more respect for human beings.

A number of young people have tragically died as a result of gun crime recently, much of it gang-related. Among the advice from concerned and moral members of the public have been a growing number of calls for "a return to national service".   

Sure, conscription will teach feral teenagers that violence is wrong! Am I alone in observing a close parallel between armed forces and gangs? The former have official licence to invade neighbouring territories to shoot and kill those who disrespect their leaders (and anyone else unfortunate enough to get in the way), a behavior trait which I might have though we should be discouraging in adolescent gangsters.  

Leader of "free world"

With friendship's arm extended 

Lost Mickey Mouse hands

Besieged Palestine

Eats itself; Fatah thinner

Hamas non amat

Rushdie gets knighthood

Iran clerics volunteer 

To help Queen with sword

Teetotal Sarko.

Who could have spiked his water?

Surely not Putin? 

Jean Baudrillard French sociologist, post-modernist philosopher, author of more than 50 works and a literary hero of mine, was reported dead last week. 

He focused his work on the interaction between consciousness, reality and fantasy, creating from them a copy world he called hyper-reality, positing that things do not happen if they are not seen. He came to some notoriety for suggesting (The Gulf War Did Not Take Place) that the 1991 Gulf War was a non-event and had been fought on a purely symbolic level in the media. He later said that the 11/09/01 attacks were "a dark fantasy" ("While terrorists had committed the atrocity, it is we who have wanted it. Terrorism is immoral, and it responds to a globalisation that is itself immoral.")