#Schaunard

[supercantaloupe]

yess the fucking Guys are back

[aporeticelenchus]

Quick thoughts on La Boheme:

The writers of Rent got one thing absolutely right: Colline and Schaunard should kiss. (Not to avoid the true OTP of Colline/His Old Coat)

Love that the weird song about the toymaker has no plot relevance and never comes up again. Weird red herring toymakers ftw.

It’s probably not surprising that I find Rodolfo and Mimi less interesting than everything else going on. Musetta and Marcello would probably be very annoying leads, but I enjoyed them as secondary characters.

I was impressed by the Franco Zefirelli sets, especially for the town and cafe. Immersive! (We saw the 2018 Met Opera production)

There were lots of jokes! I knew there were jokes in Acts 1, and 2 but I didn’t expect there to still be jokes in Act 4 right until the dying Mimi enters. I liked the jokes, but sometimes it was a little tonally odd. I guess that’s Romanticism, baby.

Speaking of Rent, I still have no idea where Maureen’s weird cow song comes from. So many of the other strange Rent moments have obvious La Boheme precedent, but I remain confused on that one.

I thought I might cry at the end, because I cry very easily at theater, but I guess I wasn’t invested enough in Mimi. There were some moving moments, but all the standing around singing waiting for death wore me down a bit.

I don’t know enough about anything to have a strong opinion, but my experience of Puccini so far is that some music of his I find beautiful, but sometimes it gets…a little sickly sweet? Unvaried? Is that anything?

I had fun! Glad to have seen it.

[opera-ghosts]

Leoncavallo: La Bohème, Act I - Mimì Pinson, la biondinetta - Rosina Storchio (1911)

On May 6th, 1897, Mahler was in attendance at the Teatro La Fenice, in Venice, to hear the world premiere of “La Bohème” opera by Ruggero Leoncavallo, since this title was programmed for the upcoming season of the Wiener Staatsoper. . Mahler was also present at La Fenice the preceding night to hear Puccini’s Bohème, which he had heard during its premiere one year earlier. Upon listening to both versions, he was convinced that Leoncavallo's work was clearly inferior to Puccini's. . Mahler strongly advised Wilhelm Jahn -- who still was director of the Wiener Staatsoper -- that Leoncavallo’s opera should not be performed in Vienna. But Jahn had excellent relations with the composer, so, in June, he signed a “more than modest” contract to produce Leoncavallo’s Bohème.

During Mahler’s time as the conductor of the Wiener Staatsoper, Leoncavallo's La Bohème had a total of 6 performances. Puccini's, which had its premiere in Vienna in 1903, had a total of 61.

On This Day: 6 May: Leoncavallo’s La Bohème Was Premiered.

That work premiered at the Teatro la Fenice in Venice on 6 May 1897, roughly one year after Puccini presented his setting at the Teatro Regio in Turin. Both librettos are based on the novel Scènes de la vie de bohème, originally published in serial form by Henri Murger in 1851, who subsequently turned these loose stories into a coherent play. A scholar writes, “there is some recent evidence to suggest that the scenario on which both operas are based was probably Leoncavallo’s.”

Since Puccini and Leoncavallo worked on their respective works at the same time, it was almost inevitable that a conflict of authorship would arise. Leoncavallo claimed that he had previously offered Puccini a completed libretto. As such, Leoncavallo claimed precedence over the subject. In addition, he asserted Puccini knew all along that he was working on the opera. Puccini responded to the accusation the following day in an open letter to Il corriere della sera, claiming that he had been working on his own version for some time, and felt that he could not oblige Leoncavallo by discontinuing the opera. He also “welcomed the prospect of competing with his rival and allowing the public to judge the winner.” A musicologist writes, “A mutual influence was certainly exercised by the assumption each composer made about his adversary’s libretto and musical style. The deletion of the ‘atto del cortile’ from Puccini’s opera may be seen as a direct consequence of his acquaintance with Leoncavallo’s libretto, whereas Leoncavallo, in the later version of his opera entitled Mimì Pinson, tried to adopt the inverse order of vocal roles, which by that time had been accepted by Puccini’s public.”

A comparison of both works reveals interesting dramatic and musical differences. Leoncavallo adhered closer to Murger’s novel, “disclosed by literary and musical quotations which permeate his libretto and score.” It has been suggested that Leoncavallo approached the work with the realism demanded from verismo opera. In Puccini’s opera it remains unclear, which of the four Bohemian friends is the musician, whereas Leoncavallo immediately identifies Schaunard as the composer. He performs his own composition; a cantata parody in Act 2, accompanying himself on the piano while the orchestra remains silent.

“For one moment the listener has the illusion of being at a party rather than at the opera.” In general, stage music plays a greater role as part of the action in Leoncavallo’s setting, as “he conceives this music as being part of an outside reality grafted onto his work.” And while Puccini balances the contrast between joyous and serious moments and their musical accompaniments in all four acts, Leoncavallo introduces a complete break at the beginning of Act 3. The first two acts are comic opera depicting Bohemian life, while acts 3 and 4 “unmask the carefree exuberance of the first two acts a main affect and unreal. The comedy is but a façade.”

We might also take a quick look at how Leoncavallo, compared to Puccini, deals with Mimi’s illness. For Puccini, Mimi is ill right from the beginning, and illness is an integral part of her personality. As listeners, we always have the suspicion that her illness is the primary reason why Rodolfo falls in love with her. To be sure, the sense of poverty in Mimi’s life is “not unconnected with her illness, but the dominating impression is of a fatality.” In Leoncavallo’s setting, Mimi falls ill during the action as the unmistakable result of her circumstances.

“With no money, she is prematurely discharged from the hospital, and her death is no more than the natural consequence of a medical system perverted by capitalism. Sorrow at her death is mingled with anger at the horrid conditions that caused it.” After the highly successful première of Leoncavallo’s La Bohème, both works coexisted for a decade but Leoncavallo’s work proved less attractive to a broader public. The “impact of Puccini’s musico-dramatic vision and the superiority of his musical invention eventually made history decide against Leoncavallo.”

[princesssarisa]

Once again, my attention turns to small, nitpicky details of staging in opera – namely, the question in La Bohéme of why Rodolfo doesn't see Mimí die. Nearly every production makes the moment of her death clear to the audience by having her hand fall limply to the side of the bed. It's easy enough for Marcello, Musetta, and Schaunard not to notice this, since they're busy heating up the medicine Marcello bought. But why Rodolfo doesn't notice varies between different tenors and different stagings.

Because I'm a romantic sap, I'll admit that my favorite is when he just happens to turn away a moment too soon. He stays by her side throughout her last words, and very briefly breaks into tears when the score calls for it, but then pulls himself together and goes back to watching over her, tucking the blanket more snugly around her, stroking her hair, and maybe giving her a gentle kiss as she dozes off. But then he turns to ask Marcello what the doctor said, and in that instant he misses the moment of her death. Luciano Pavarotti always played it this way; so did David Hobson in the Baz Luhrmann staging, and Ramón Vargas in the 2008 Met Simulcast, among others. This particular staging is, IMHO, the most redemptive for Rodolfo. Even though he pushed Mimí away in the months prior, at her deathbed he finally matures, and gives her his full attention and all the love and care she needs. The fact that he misses her final moment is just a fluke that he can't be blamed for.

Then there's a less sentimental option, which my heart doesn't like very much because it gives us a more self-absorbed Rodolfo, but which my head says is more powerful. In this version, when Rodolfo breaks down in tears, he leaves Mimí's bedside and goes to another part of the room, where he stands or sits alone with his back to everyone until he regains composure, and this is why he misses her death. In the famous 1982 Met telecast, José Carreras runs from the bedside, leaving Teresa Stratas's Mimí to pitifully raise her head and reach out her hand to call him back, only to expire before she can. Now, I know I shouldn't judge Rodolfo too harshly for this... men and emotion, after all... but it's like a final encapsulation of the ways he always failed her. He abandoned her because he couldn't bear to watch her slowly dying, and now, though he comes through and cares for her throughout most of her death scene, at the very end he once again "can't bear it" and walks away, too absorbed in his own grief to be fully there for her.

A third option falls in between the first two. Rodolfo doesn't leave Mimí's side, but once he breaks down crying he can't stop, and as he kneels sobbing into his hands, or into the side of the bed, or as he sits with his back to Mimí as he tries to regain composure, he fails to see her die. Gianni Raimondi in the 1965 studio film does the "sobbing into the side of the bed" variant; Rolando Villazón in the 2009 Robert Dornhelm film does the "sitting with his back turned" variant. At least in this staging, Mimí has the comfort of his presence beside her, but he still gets lost in his own grief, distracting him from her.

Of course, there's technically no reason why he has to miss the moment of her death – he just can't realize what's happened. The libretto doesn't call for Mimí's hand to fall to the side of the bed, that's just a tradition. It would be easy for her to lie in a slightly different position so that the bed supports her arms, and to just appear to drop off to sleep, as she did earlier in the same scene. This way, Rodolfo can be fully there for her and focus on her to the very end, just not realizing right away that she won't wake up again. This is what the libretto's original stage directions seem to imply.

These are small differences, but they each have a very different impact, or at least I think so.

[ripadolin]

my vision for act 4 of la boheme has always been marcello and rodolfo miserably looking at schaunard and colline (have been in an incredibly stable and normal romantic relationship forever) and bemoaning their heterosexual misery like "god how do you two do it"

[infinitelytheheartexpands]

absolutely GLORIOUS

[respectablecapers]

tagged by @nablah

last song: legna! sigari! (bastianini, siepi, bergonzi, cesari). schaunard's motif fucks.

last show / currently watching: doom patrol bc i'm predictable lol.

currently reading: nothing atm :( i want to reread the dalemark quartet soon though.

current obsession: doom patrol!!! i cannot wait for s4 part 2 to come out i need to know if the gays are okay!!!! also weaving and spinning and drum carder videos. makes my soul vibrate.

[mamusiq]

La Bohème

World premiere: Teatro Regio, Turin, 1896.

World premiere: Teatro Regio, Turin, 1896. La Bohème, the passionate, timeless, and indelible story of love among young artists in Paris, can stake its claim as the world’s most popular opera. It has a marvelous ability to make a powerful first impression and to reveal unsuspected treasures after dozens of hearings. At first glance, La Bohème is the definitive depiction of the joys and sorrows of love and loss; on closer inspection, it reveals the deep emotional significance hidden in the trivial things—a bonnet, an old overcoat, a chance meeting with a neighbor—that make up our everyday lives.

Giacomo Puccini (1858–1924) was immensely popular in his own lifetime, and his mature works remain staples in the repertory of most of the world’s opera companies. His librettists for La Bohème, Giuseppe Giacosa (1847–1906) and Luigi Illica (1857–1919), also collaborated with him on his next two operas, Tosca and Madama Butterfly. Giacosa, a dramatist, was responsible for the stories and Illica, a poet, worked primarily on the words themselves.

The libretto sets the action in Paris, circa 1830. This is not a random setting, but rather reflects the issues and concerns of a particular time when, following the upheavals of revolution and war, French artists had lost their traditional support base of aristocracy and church. The story centers on self-conscious youth at odds with mainstream society—a Bohemian ambience that is clearly recognizable in any modern urban center. La Bohème captures this ethos in its earliest days.

ACT I

Paris, in the 1830s. In their Latin Quarter garret, the near-destitute artist Marcello and poet Rodolfo try to keep warm on Christmas Eve by feeding the stove with pages from Rodolfo’s latest drama. They are soon joined by their roommates—Colline, a philosopher, and Schaunard, a musician, who brings food, fuel, and funds he has collected from an eccentric nobleman. While they celebrate their unexpected fortune, the landlord, Benoit, comes to collect the rent. After getting the older man drunk, the friends urge him to tell of his flirtations, then throw him out in mock indignation at his infidelity to his wife. As the others depart to revel at the Café Momus, Rodolfo remains behind to finish an article, promising to join them later. There is another knock at the door—the visitor is Mimì, a pretty neighbor, whose candle has gone out in the stairwell. As she enters the room, she suddenly feels faint. Rodolfo gives her a sip of wine, then helps her to the door and relights her candle. Mimì realizes that she lost her key when she fainted, and as the two search for it, both candles go out. Rodolfo finds the key and slips it into his pocket. In the moonlight, he takes Mimì’s hand and tells her about his dreams. She recounts her life alone in a lofty garret, embroidering flowers and waiting for the spring. Rodolfo’s friends call from outside, telling him to join them. He responds that he is not alone and will be along shortly. Happy to have found each other, Mimì and Rodolfo leave, arm in arm, for the café.

ACT II

Amid the shouts of street hawkers near the Café Momus, Rodolfo buys Mimì a bonnet and introduces her to his friends. They all sit down and order supper. The toy vendor Parpignol passes by, besieged by children. Marcello’s former sweetheart, Musetta, makes a noisy entrance on the arm of the elderly, but wealthy, Alcindoro. The ensuing tumult reaches its peak when, trying to gain Marcello’s attention, she loudly sings the praises of her own popularity. Sending Alcindoro away to buy her a new pair of shoes, Musetta finally falls into Marcello’s arms. Soldiers march by the café, and as the bohemians fall in behind, the returning Alcindoro is presented with the check.

ACT III

At dawn at the Barrière d’Enfer, a toll-gate on the edge of Paris, a customs official admits farm women to the city. Guests are heard drinking and singing within a tavern. Mimì arrives, searching for the place where Marcello and Musetta now live. When the painter appears, she tells him of her distress over Rodolfo’s incessant jealousy. She says she believes it is best that they part. As Rodolfo emerges from the tavern, Mimì hides nearby. Rodolfo tells Marcello that he wants to separate from Mimì, blaming her flirtatiousness. Pressed for the real reason, he breaks down, saying that her illness can only grow worse in the poverty they share. Overcome with emotion, Mimì comes forward to say goodbye to her lover. Marcello runs back into the tavern upon hearing Musetta’s laughter. While Mimì and Rodolfo recall past happiness, Marcello returns with Musetta, quarreling about her flirting with a customer. They hurl insults at each other and part, but Mimì and Rodolfo decide to remain together until springtime. 

ACT IV

Months later in the garret, Rodolfo and Marcello, now separated from their girlfriends, reflect on their loneliness. Colline and Schaunard bring a meager meal. To lighten their spirits, the four stage a dance, which turns into a mock duel. At the height of the hilarity, Musetta bursts in with news that Mimì is outside, too weak to come upstairs. As Rodolfo runs to her aid, Musetta relates how Mimì begged to be taken to Rodolfo to die. She is made as comfortable as possible, while Musetta asks Marcello to sell her earrings for medicine and Colline goes off to pawn his overcoat. Left alone, Mimì and Rodolfo recall their meeting and their first happy days, but she is seized with violent coughing. When the others return, Musetta gives Mimì a muff to warm her hands, and Mimì slowly drifts into unconsciousness. Musetta prays for Mimì, but it is too late. The friends realize that she is dead, and Rodolfo collapses in despair.

[londranotizie24]

Di Annalisa Valente Arriva domenica 1 dicembre al The Shaw Theatre di Londra la Bohème di Puccini nell'allestimento visto a luglio a Reggio Emilia. Direzione artistica di Mirko Matarazzo e direzione d'orchestra di Dimitri Scarlato. La Bohème diretta da Mirko Matarazzo e Dimitri Scarlato arriva a Londra La Bohème diretta dal Maestro Dimitri Scarlato arriva a Londra. Domenica 1 Dicembre alle 5.30pm presso The Shaw Theatre l’opera prenderà vita con la regia di Yaor Jacob e la direzione artistica di Mirko Matarazzo. Dopo il successo ottenuto il 29 e il 30 Luglio scorsi al Teatro Asioli di Correggio (Reggio Emilia) nell’ambito della prima edizione del Regium Lepidi Opera Festival, promosso proprio dal Tenore Matarazzo, che anche allora ne fu il direttore artistico, ora è Londra ad ospitare un’opera così importante e conosciuta in tutto il mondo. Promotore dell’iniziativa nella capitale britannica è stato proprio Scarlato, che già da fine estate ha iniziato a lavorare senza sosta per mettere in piedi un progetto ambizioso e non privo di difficoltà, a partire dalla composizione del cast e dalla ricerca dei fondi. “Si tratta di un progetto fatto per celebrare il centenario pucciniano all’interno della comunità italiana a Londra, che è molto vasta – ci spiega Dimitri - ed è per questo che ho chiesto il sostegno all’Istituto Italiano di Cultura. E poi c’è Il Circolo che sta attivamente aiutando, è quasi un partner perché nella ricerca dei fondi mi sta aiutando molto. E c’è anche la British Italian Society che è un altro sponsor”. Tra i sostenitori del progetto, anche Inca. Naturalmente le istituzioni sono state invitate alla serata, che sarà un appuntamento unico e da non perdere: “Il Console Generale ha confermato la sua presenza”. Quello del Maestro Scarlato non è l’unico tributo a Giacomo Puccini in questo anno che sta per avviarsi alla conclusione e che ha collezionato tanti eventi in omaggio al grande compositore italiano, in occasione del centenario della sua morte. Come la stessa opera, che sarà rappresentata, sempre a Londra, dalla Royal Opera House entro la fine dell’anno. Ma questa del Maestro Scarlato ha qualcosa di diverso, che si può benissimo definire una marcia in più. “Nel mio piccolo – sottolinea Dimitri - ho voluto fare qualcosa che non fosse soltanto per pianoforte e cantanti, in un piccolo ambiente; volevo fare una cosa un po’ più in grande, quindi mi sono imbarcato in questo sforzo, non soltanto economico, perché produrre un’opera coinvolge tanti aspetti. Avremo quindi una versione per più strumenti in modo da offrire un suono più importante, più bello, per sostenere il lavoro dei cantanti”. Quindi, eccoli qui, gli artisti coinvolti ne La Bohème di Domenica 1 Dicembre a Londra: - Zoya Gramagin - Mimi - Hassen Doss - Rodolfo - Lilian Tong - Musetta - Giuseppe Pelligra - Marcello - Gabriel Tufail Smith - Colline - Barnaby Beer - Schaunard - Yuki Okuyama - Benoit / Alcindoro - Katya Berdnikov - Un Ragazzo - Fernando Messulam – Parpignol Insieme a Dimitri Scarlato (direttore d’orchestra) e a Mirko Matarazzo (direttore artistico), il regista è Yaor Jacob, scelto direttamente da Scarlato per ricoprire questo ruolo, determinante per la buona riuscita della serata. “Si tratta di un mio allievo al Royal College of Music (dove Scarlato è responsabile del Masters in Composition for Screen, n.d.r.) che studia composizione per il cinema, viene dal mondo del teatro, del musical; l’ho contattato per sapere se avesse potuto interessargli fare la regia e lui ha colto la palla al balzo. Anche lui quindi è pienamente coinvolto come me nella realizzazione del set, nella scelta dei costumi (che comunque caratterizzano una versione moderna dell’opera), le luci, ecc. E’ una cosa bella anche per i giovani artisti che hanno l’opportunità sia di debuttare nel ruolo sia di mettersi alla prova con un titolo così importante, per acquisire esperienza professionale”. Ci sembra che le prerogative per un grande successo ci siano proprio tutte, non resta quindi che attendere la sera del 1 Dicembre perché le luci de La Bohème risplendano su Londra, che in quel momento sarà già immersa nell’atmosfera magica del Natale, quasi alle porte. Una serata unica, uno spettacolo unico, che sarebbe davvero un peccato perdere. Per esserci bisogna affrettarsi cliccando qui. Siamo sicuri che sarete in tanti. ... Continua a leggere su

[agendaculturaldelima]

#ElEscenarioDelMundo #ProyeccionDeVida

🎬 “LA BOHÈME”

🔎 Género: Ópera / Música

⏰ Duración: 135 minutos

✍️ Guión: Giuseppe Giacosa y Luigi Illica

📕 Escenas de la Vida Bohemia de Henry Murger

🎼 Música: Giacomo Puccini (1858–1924)

💥 Ópera en cuatro actos que nos sitúa en París (1830). No se trata de un escenario aleatorio, sino que más bien refleja los problemas y preocupaciones de una época particular en la que, tras los trastornos de la revolución y la guerra, los artistas franceses habían perdido su base de apoyo tradicional de la aristocracia y iglesia. La historia se centra en una juventud consciente de sí misma y en desacuerdo con la sociedad en general: un ambiente bohemio que es claramente reconocible en cualquier centro urbano moderno. La Bohème captura este espíritu en sus primeros días.

🗯 Apasionada, eterna e indeleble historia de amor entre jóvenes artistas de París, puede reclamar su título como la ópera más popular del mundo. Tiene una capacidad maravillosa para causar una primera impresión poderosa y revelar tesoros insospechados después de decenas de audiencias. A primera vista, La Bohème es la descripción definitiva de las alegrías y tristezas del amor y la pérdida; Si se examina más de cerca, se revela el profundo significado emocional escondido en las cosas triviales (un sombrero, un abrigo viejo, un encuentro casual con un vecino) que conforman nuestra vida cotidiana.

👥 Reparto: Sonya Yoncheva (soprano - Mimì), Michael Fabiano (tenor - Rodolfo), Susanna Phillips (soprano - Musetta), Lucas Meachem (barítono - Marcello), Alexey Lavrov (barítono - Schaunard), Matthew Rose (Colline), Paul Plishka (Benoit / Alcindoro), Gregory Warren (tenor - Parpignol) y The Metropolitan Opera Orchestra & Chorus.

📢 Dirección: Marco Armiliato (Italia)

© Producción: Franco Zeffirelli y Metropolitan Opera de Nueva York

🌎 País: Italia

📅 Año: 2018

📽 PROYECCIÓN:

📆 Sábado 17 de Agosto

🕛 12:00m. 

🏪 Movie Time Basadre (calle Palmeras 343, Urbanización Orrantia - San Isidro)

🎯 Entradas:

🎫  Adultos, Niños y Jubilados: S/.75

🖱 Reservas: https://movietime.com.pe/peliculas/2856

[supercantaloupe]

The Rent Post™

aka, a lengthy screed on how rent the musical goes about adapting la boheme, where it fails, and what can be done about it

so i’m admittedly a reformed Theater Kid™. and tbh i still very much am a Theater Person, even a Musical Theater Person, i’m just in my 20s now and my taste has shifted away from what’s mainstream on broadway right now and closer to the world of opera. but there absolutely was a time in my early teens when i was Really Into Rent, as many Theater Kids™ were…and there was also a time in my later teens when i thought about it and realized that rent was not only just not my thing, but that there were some significant Problems with it, as its own work and as an adaptation. now, having finally seen boheme for myself, i feel like i’m really in a place to piece together how the two works compare to one another, and why/how i think rent falls short of success (as a piece of theater anyway. obviously rent is not lacking in commercial and popular audience success, for better or worse).

i knew years ago that rent is a direct adaptation of la boheme, but wow, only after seeing the opera did i come to realize just how closely rent follows boheme: in plot beats, in character names, even borrowing a couple of lyrics and musical motifs here and there. 

but it also changes things from the original opera -- namely, it adds things -- and i think this is the first place where rent runs into trouble. now i am by no means such a purist that i think no work should ever be adapted unchanged (more on this later...what’s the point of adaptation if not to change things to make the work resonate with a new audience anyway?). however, any and every change made to an existing work in adaptation should be thoughtfully made and motivated, because every single change has an effect on the whole product in some way, and many small changes can add up to create a rather different final product than a creator might realize. 

(and this goes both ways, i think -- both in a work where a more flawed source material is adapted into something new and better, and when a superior original work is adapted into a worse new creation.)

definitely some of the changes made in rent while adapting la boheme are due to the change in medium. opera and musicals are both theater, sure, and more similar in many ways to each other than either is to straight play or film perhaps, but it’s still like a spanish speaker and an italian speaker trying to have a conversation with one another. the languages are similar and there might even be a bit of crossover in mutual intelligibility but they are still ultimately two different languages with different grammars and vocabulary. opera in general tends to have slower pacing than book musicals, fewer plot threads of equal importance. that rent is specifically a musical adaptation of la boheme, rather than a true rock opera, demonstrates this well. the mimi/rodolfo relationship is still front and center (americanized of course as mimi and roger), with marcello and musetta close behind (though expanded in rent as more of a love triangle among mark, maureen, and joanne, the latter being an invented character for the musical who i think embodies the original marcello as much as mark does). but rent adds a lot of stage time and focus to a new couple, collins and angel, who are directly lifted from colline and schaunard, who are essentially secondary comic relief characters, whereas collins/angel are arguably as important plot wise to mimi/roger and mark/maureen/joanne. 

(and i’m not gonna get into the level of #problematic there is to the depiction of maureen as an overly promiscuous bisexual or discuss why colline and schaunard can’t have been a gay couple the whole time or whatever because. wow i do not care. there are more important things to complain about here c’mon)

first big addition to rent that wasn’t original to boheme is that increased stage presence/focus for collins and angel. it's not inherently a bad addition, and for its time the open depiction of multiple queer romances onstage was still kind of groundbreaking. and yes, rent having a longer runtime than boheme should give it the opportunity to flesh this relationship out more as well as the other two to make sure they all have an equal chance to develop and end in a satisfying way. hell, they don’t even all have to be equal in stage presence/focus/importance to be a positive addition to the show (and how can it be when angel dies halfway through act ii? then again, the character dying doesn’t exactly mean the relationship loses its importance in the plot…) but despite the extra runtime and faster storytelling pace, rent doesn’t actually develop angel and collins all that much, especially not before angel dies. this isn’t an issue with colline and schaunard, of course, cause it’s obvious they’re not important characters in boheme. but collins and angel are arguably more important in rent than even mark/maureen/joanne. and angel dies halfway through act ii…meanwhile, mimi survives the end of rent, when she very pointedly does not in boheme.

and…oh, mimi. she is probably the biggest and most problematic adaptational change in rent as compared to la boheme. on the surface she (and roger/rodolfo) seems the least changed of all the opera’s characters, her name not even undergoing the same americanization treatment as the others. but there are just so many small details that add up and up until she’s a fundamentally different character in rent. i don’t even begrudge the change in occupation: her becoming a stripper/exotic dancer/possible sex worker(?) rather than a seamstress does bring with it some cultural baggage, but i am not personally interested in reading any morality into her choice of occupation, and i choose not to read her line of work as having any implications for her “innocence” or moral value as a character. nor will i read her addiction or disease as being moral qualities either. however: there is a big difference between tuberculosis in the 1840s and both AIDS and drug addiction in the 1980s. neither boheme’s mimi nor rent’s are morally responsible for their illnesses. but there is absolutely nothing mimi could do about her tuberculosis in boheme except die, because it was france in the 1840s and nobody knew what an antibiotic was. in new york in 1989, there were rehab clinics and there were medications for HIV. these things were expensive and hard to access, yes, but rent really goes out of its way to show us that mimi had the resources to access these things -- she is able to afford AZT in act i on her own (and the fact that she’s on AZT is used as shorthand for her HIV+ status, as opposed to other characters about whom we are told outright)...

… and her relationship with benny (the much-expanded counterpart to boheme’s benoit the landlord character) in act ii, who verbally offers to pay for her admittance to a rehab program.

yet the next time we see or hear anything of her, her loving mother is calling to ask where she is as she’s presumably gone missing…

…and then discover she has been living on the street, dying from exposure/disease/addiction. 

did she do this willingly? did benny refuse to continue supporting her? we don’t really get an answer to any of this; rent isn’t really concerned with why mimi is in the position she’s in, but is rather entirely preoccupied with staying true to boheme -- up until mimi’s death, anyway. because mimi doesn’t die in rent, she is saved, and says that angel told her to keep on living (as though it were a choice). why? we can only speculate. really, if any character embodies the same “dying tragically in a world too cruel for them to survive” theme as mimi in boheme does, it’s angel. and her death is honestly used as a tool throughout the rest of the show: a purpose for kindness, community, life.

is this a bad “bury your gays” kind of thing? i don’t really know, i’m inclined to believe not. but i do think angel’s death is more thematically akin to mimi’s death in boheme than the actual (near-)death of mimi in rent. 

and this is the biggest difference between rent and boheme: boheme is not about hope. boheme is a tragic romance about how important relationships are among people in disadvantaged communities/situations, but it does not say that love will transcend or materially improve those conditions. rent, by contrast, does. rent suggests that the love of partners and community (even if filled with complications and tensions) is lifesaving. 

(and i know rent’s stated thesis is “no day but today,” i.e. live and enjoy every day as though it could be your last, but i think thematically all the characters and their interactions overall suggest a theme of community just as if not more strongly, whereas “no day but today” is more limited to the HIV+ characters and has little to do with the mark/maureen/joanne subplot. mimi's outlook on "no day but today" changes when she chooses to stay alive on the urging of angel from the other side.) 

now i don’t think this is altogether a bad moral to have in your theater piece. especially in one of the first major pieces of theater centered on marginalized queer characters. i will not deny how important and cathartic it can be, both now and especially thirty years ago when rent premiered, to end on a hopeful note rather than a tragic one. but i have a couple of issues with how rent goes about making this its central theme. for one thing, mimi has frankly too many Things affecting her health in the end for her survival to be realistic, and absolutely nothing up to this point in the show has suggested a setting of magical realism or pseudofantasy; everything has been as grounded in real life as possible, until finale b, when mimi suddenly and near-inexplicably survives. it feels like it comes out of nowhere tonally and thus isn’t very satisfying an ending when put to scrutiny. for another, angel has already died, and angel is, compared to mimi, a much more beloved and uncomplicatedly positive force in their community and relationships. angel’s entire stage presence (while she’s alive and when her character is invoked or referenced after her death) is a positive one: caring for collins when he’s injured, providing food and funds to the group, placating arguments, etc.

and the fact that angel has no concerned parents leaving her voicemails, unlike mark, roger, and mimi, underscores that she has no one else to lean on for support except her community of bohemians. and we’re not given a reason to believe one way or the other about her home life or financial stability outside of today 4 u when she got a sudden windfall for killing a dog (whatever; schaunard did the same thing to the parrot in boheme). in contrast to mimi, roger, and especially mark, who are clearly shown to have family who care about them and want to support them, yet they choose to live in romanticized poverty anyway. mark even gets a good job in filming and still finds a way to complain about it.

really, except for angel (and arguably collins, too), it’s difficult to totally sympathize with the characters in rent and care fully about their plight because they’re just…not depicted as particularly likable people. maureen is an unfaithful and kind of manipulative partner, and her approach to “protest” is really just bad self-absorbed performance art. roger just kind of sucks at songwriting (how is your eyes the song that he’s spent the whole show writing? it’s the worst number in the musical lol), and he’s quick to anger…his decision to leave mimi makes even less sense here than rodolfo’s decision to leave her in boheme, where at least he did so out of genuine concern for her health (also why does he leave mark? rodolfo embraces marcello as a friend still after mimi leaves in boheme...act iii of boheme is the least closely adapted in rent by far.). wheras in rent roger seems to be both genuinely jealous of mimi interacting with other men and upset by her continued drug use. although this last one i don’t begrudge him for, since it’s made clear he’s a recovering addict himself…although it does make mimi’s relationship with him all the worse, considering that mimi’s take on the whole “no day but today” theme is to throw caution to the wind with her actions and not worry about the future at all, and her interacting with roger is directly tempting him back into addiction which he clearly does not want. (and roger’s rejection of her in another day is framed as him being in the wrong with mimi being backed up by the life support chorus…)

while mimi as we’ve seen is reckless and throws her life away even when people try to help her (very very different from boheme’s mimi, who makes no particularly reckless choices, and accepts help when it's offered). and mark is entitled and uses his film as an excuse to disengage with the real world, even exploit it (see: the way he films the life support meeting without permission, or the homeless woman, which is never really confronted elsewhere in the show…)

the inclusion of a homelessness subplot in rent is particularly strange to me. it shows up a lot, especially in act i: the threat of homelessness for the main characters should they not pay their rent or come to some kind of agreement with their landlord; the vague future threat of benny’s “cyberarts studio” getting built which is implied would evict those living in tents on the lot; mimi being found living on the street in the finale; and the chorus/ensemble who show up periodically, as above. homelessness is an ever present element of set dressing/conflict in rent but it’s never really addressed, no points are ever made about it, which is in my opinion kind of wild and very unsatisfying. the above scene especially, considering how direct of a callout it is towards the show’s own characters and writing, yet it is never addressed afterwards, and this conflict is never really resolved. 

one could take similar issue with the choice to swap tuberculosis in boheme with AIDS in rent. though in my opinion i think addiction is as much as if not more rent’s analogue to boheme’s TB, since that is a much more acutely seen disease for mimi and only mimi while there are multiple characters (main and chorus) living with HIV…then again, angel is the character who gets the real tragic death analogous to mimi’s in boheme, and angel dies of complications from AIDS, so i suppose it’s open to debate. regardless, there’s a significant contextual difference between TB in the 1840s and HIV and addiction in the 1980s: there was no system, political, social, or medical, that could truly heal someone of tuberculosis in boheme’s setting. but there very much was a medical and social system in place to help people with HIV and addiction in the 1980s; systems which were aggressively denied to those who were suffering by the political system. and for as much as the characters in rent like to sing about revolution, protest, and activism, not a single one actually challenges the powers that be or call out by name those responsible for the systematic denial of healthcare to the marginalized. activism and artistic revolution is hollow and meaningless in rent, they never name a real enemy, just a vague sense of “the man.” but it’s a story set in a real and still recent historical time period, the effects of which we still deal with today (and i’m sure even more acutely so back in 1996); it just feels disrespectful to me to use those crises as such important set dressing for your musical which positions itself as a “fuck the man” revolutionary kind of piece of theater and yet do or say absolutely nothing about the real world issues it is appropriating. for more information i highly recommend checking out lindsay ellis’ video on the topic. 

so is all this to say i think rent is an irredeemable, fundamentally broken work? actually, no; i think it has a decent foundation and some solid music. i understand the reasoning behind and appeal of updating an old work to a new time period/setting for a new audience, and i think trading 1840s paris for 1980s nyc is an interesting and workable substitution. but when i look at rent as it is now, i just do not see a finished product. 

and i think this is the most frustrating and disappointing thing about rent to me: rent is, quite literally, an unfinished show. its composer and librettist, jonathan larson, died suddenly the day of its first preview performance. and for so many developing (off-)broadway shows, previews are when the actual finished product is crafted, as the show is revised based on audience reactions. of course audience and critical reception to rent from the very beginning was positive, but i can’t help but speculate how much of that is influenced by the mere fact of its creator’s untimely death. and i wonder what changes larson would have made to his show if he had lived, and been able to hear the audience’s reactions, and revise the show accordingly. i wonder if he would have thought it worked. i wonder if he would have seen the same cracks that i see in it. i don’t think rent is inherently unsalvageable, but it is so far unsalvaged. 

and frankly i don’t know that it ever will be salvaged; not for many years, at least. not until copyright and licensing in musical theater changes, and not until broadway audiences get more comfortable with the idea of altering beloved and familiar classics (the 2019 revival of oklahoma! was, in my opinion, a work of genius, but i’m well aware my opinion is not universal, and especially during its national tour the show’s entire concept has been extremely controversial). do to rent what bartlett sher and aaron sorkin are doing to camelot right now: keep the heart and soul of the piece intact, but rewrite what doesn’t work. or do something even more drastic, cut subplots and change character traits, i don’t know. maybe mimi should die; maybe it really is important that she survive! maybe rent shouldn’t have been based on boheme at all; hell, what would rent look like if it was based on la traviata instead? (well the answer to this one is “a different show entirely,” most likely, but if you want to write a poignant and tragic love story based on a romantic opera and set in 1980s nyc featuring queer and/or HIV+ characters, well…it could work and i’ll leave it there.) maybe that’s going too far, i don’t know, but the point is, i want to see directors and writers have the freedom to try that stuff out. because i don’t think rent is unsalvageable; i think it’s unfinished. 

but rent is far too popular and beloved for anyone to dare touch its libretto with new ink. the memory of jonathan larson is held far too preciously for anyone to allow such debasement of his work. when searching online for libretti to reference when writing this essay, i found one transcribed script with this at its heading:

and i think that about sums it up for me. “may he be friggen worshiped!” him and all his creations, holy and untouchable.  it’d be tantamount to theater sacrilege at this point to try and change it. how dare you sully larson’s good name by thinking you could “fix” his masterpiece…the masterpiece no one wants to admit he never got to actually finish. well, i don’t know, maybe it’s me being jewish and sentimental here, but if i have enough respect for a piece of work i want to be able to engage with it and question it and interpret it as i think it best ought to be. (jonathan larson was also jewish. would he agree with me? i don’t know. but i think he’d want to see the best of his work, just like i do.) live theater is inherently participatory and dialectical. and it ought to be alive, not carved into stone. neither immovable nor under threat of utter annihilation should someone come too close with a chisel. rent has potential. la boheme is still as affecting today as it was a hundred thirty years ago (did you know rent premiered almost exactly a hundred years after la boheme?). rent could be the same. and it does have emotionality behind it as it is now, credit where credit’s due. but it could be more than just that. if we could just let someone finish the thing already, even if larson himself couldn’t.

[mysticaldonutshark]

[vera-dauriac]

And finally, because it's fitting to end with a Di Stefano duet.

[classicalmusicdaily]

Zoltan Nagy started his international career as the youngest ensemble member of the Vienna State Opera. Recognized by opera critics for his strengths in both dramatic and comic roles, he is regularly invited to perform as a guest artist in many of Europe’s leading opera houses. Zoltan’s most requested role is Escamillo (Carmen), a role he has performed in over 12 productions in theatres like Bilbao (ABAO), Teatro Massimo di Palermo, Teatro Grande di Brescia, Teatro Ponchielli di Cremona, Teatro Sociale di Como, RTE Orchestra in Dublin, Romanian National Opera Bucharest and Cluj, the Shaanxi Grand Opera House in China, the State Theatre of Nuremberg, among others. As a permanent guest soloist of the Hungarian State Opera, Budapest, Zoltan has been invited to perform the role of Guglielmo (Cosi Fan Tutte), Silvio (Pagliacci), the title role in Kodaly’s Hary Janos, and Schaunard (La Bohème), a title he has performed at Oper Leipzig, Opera de Nice, Singapore Symphony Orchestra (in concert), Vlaamse Opera Antwerpen, and Opera Ghent among others. Zoltan made his Bolshoi Theatre of Moscow debut with the role of Count Almaviva (Le Nozze di Figaro). He has sung Haraschta (The Cunning Little Vixen) at the Hamburg State Opera, Dr Falke (Die Fledermaus) at Teatro Verdi Trieste, Calchas (Iphigenie en Aulide) in Athens, Schmied (Egk’s Peer Gynt) in Theater an der Wien, where he also had the privilege to join Edita Gruberova for her gala concert. Zoltan made his debut as Alberich (Siegfried) at Teatro Campoamor in Oviedo. He sang Marcello in a new production of La Bohème at Teatro Comunale di Sassari, portrayed the role of Dulcamara in a new production of L’Elisir d’Amore at the Romanian National Opera, and was invited to give masterclasses at the Xi’an University of Music in China. Count Tomski was a role debut in a new production of Tchaikovsy’s Pique Dame at the Opera Festival Heidenheim accompanied by the Stuttgarter Philharmoniker. Zoltán returned to Oviedo for a new production of Götterdämmerung where he performed the role of Alberich. He sings the role of Theseus in the Essen Philharmonic’s CD live recording of Bohuslav Martinu’s Ariane directed by Czech conductor Tomas Netopil, released in 2016 on Supraphon. Zoltan has worked with conductors such as Marco Armiliato, Pinchas Steinberg, Ulf Schirmer, Renato Palumbo, Fabio Luisi, Marc Minkowski, John Wilson, Alejo Perez, Tomas Netopil, Guillermo Garcia Calvo, Leo Hussain, Marcus Bosch among others. Some of the stage directors Zoltan has collaborated with are: Peter Konwitschny, Damiano Michieletto, Inga Levant, Stefano Poda, Calixto Bieito, Paris Mexis, Thorsten Fischer, Georges Delnon, Maurizio Scaparro, and Immo Karaman. He has collaborated with the Vienna Philharmonic, Robert Schumann Philharmonie, RSO Vienna, Vienna Symphony Orchestra Singapore Symphony Orchestra, National Taiwan Symphony Orchestra, Orchestra of the Romanian National Radio, Hungarian National Philharmonic Orchestra among others. Zoltan studied at the Gheorghe Dima Music Academy in his hometown Cluj-Napoca under Professor Gheorghe Roşu. Upon graduation, he received a full scholarship to study at the prestigious Mozarteum University in Salzburg for a Masters degree in voice performance with Professor Boris Bakow. He has won prizes at various singing competitions including the Romanian National Song Competition, the Hariclea Darclee International Voice Competition, and “Debut”, the European Opera Singing Competition in Germany. In 2012 Zoltan participated in the Salzburg Festival’s Young Singers Project, and was then selected to sing in the Festival’s production of Das Labyrinth. Recent engagements included two new production of La Wally and Jenufa at Theater an der Wien, a new production of The Raise and Fall of the city of Mahagonny in Parma. Future higlights of his saison include a debut at Regio Torino as Escamillo, a ROH debut in La Bohème as Schaunard and a debut at Komische Oper Berlin in the Love of the three oranges as Leander.

Dear Zoltan, I’m so glad to meet you, this time in Italy! And I am very much looking for- ward to your house debut at Teatro Regio di Parma! What has been your relationship with the Italian theatres throughout your career and what does this event mean to you? In my nearly 15 years of international career I have been lucky enough to be part of some wonder- ful productions all over the world starting with Vienna until Singapore, but singing ocasionally in Italy, becomes each time on of the highlights of my season. My first ever concert accompanied by an orchestra abroad was actually in Palermo when I was 22. Since then I was dreaming about singing one day at Teatro Massimo which was closed for renovation those years. Several years later my dream came true and I was indeed portraying the role of Escamillo in that amazing opera house… I always used to say, that a part of my heart is in Italy. I’ve also worked on several occa- sions at Teatro Verdi in Trieste, one of them was a very funny production of Die Fledermaus (Dr. Falke) with the late Gianluigi Gelmetti conducting who I was very fond of. I have beautiful memo- ries of Sardegna where I’ve done a new production of La Bohème as Marcello, and later a Pagliacci as Silvio. Singing at Teatro Regio in Parma is an absolut honor for me not only because of the enormous tradition that surrounds this opera house but also because of the fact that I am a guest artist in a very unusual production that should make history in Parma. Tell us more about this opera, about the role that you’re about to perform and the produc- tion that will be on stage at Regio di Parma this month (April)? Rise and Fall of the City of Mahagonny is an opera, although I like to call it rather music theater/ music play… composed between 1927-1929 by Kurt Weill on Bertold Brecht’s libretto, where I will interpret the role of Trinity Moses. When I first saw the score, I said to myself… “oh, I’ll deifinitely need some time to learn this music and get used to certain rhytms“. I’ve seen it challenging but I ended up having great fun singing this part and enjoying Weill’s geniality. The opera was a scandal on its premierere in Leipzig in 1930, presenting the decandece of the society which is more then actual nowadays where money is everything. I hope the audience will be receptive, of course, one should not expect a coservative staging for this type of music. I’m sure everyone will leave the the- ater whistling the Alabama song at the end of the performance… and realizing hopefully how en- joyable this music is. reposted from https://opera-charm.com/

[rayatii]

How each of the 3 main couples fight according to Chapter 15 of Henry Murger’s “Scènes de la vie de bohème”:

Rodolphe VS Mimi:

“Sometimes it was Mimi and Rodolphe who, no longer having the strength to speak, explained themselves using whichever missiles they could get their hands on.”

Schaunard VS Phémie:

“More often than not it was Schaunard who addressed a few observations to the melancholic Phémie with the end of a walking stick.”

Marcel VS Musette:

“As for Marcel and Musette, their discussions were confined to the silence of privacy; they at least took care to close their doors and windows.”

[musicainextenso]

Let’s continue our wonderful and “loveful” week that is dedicated for sure Valentine’s Day, here at Musica in Extenso. (not just for couples!)

Today we will relive the beautiful and enchanting music of the great italian opera composer, Giacomo Puccini. For this special Valentine’s Week edition, I chose the famous Musetta aria (La boheme) Quando m'en vo’ (Musetta’s Waltz) in instrumental version from the Puccini - Without words album, because we can speak the language of love in the best way, focusing on what we do; it’s important than what we say.

Enjoy! ❤️  - Editor-in-Chief