The balance between the original author intentions and the imposed modern solutions is, however, a different matter. I have the very strong feeling that more often than not, some “solutions” are adopted almost exclusively to make people talk about a production. And there it is: Carmen is not Carmen anymore, but the Carmen of Cristiano Chiarot (intendant at the Maggio Musicale Fiorentino) who decided along with the director and the conductor that the original story wasn’t good enough anymore and therefore needed to be rewritten.
In Mr. Chiarot’s words: “At a time when our society is having to confront the murder of women, how can we dare to applaud the killing of a woman?“.
I see. By the same token, I suppose he’ll change the finale of Pagliacci as well. I do believe that with this statement Mr. Chiarot is confusing the reality of a theater with the reality of a stadium: we are not applauding a murder, same way as we are not taking Don Giovanni as a role model. We are applauding a masterpiece that tells us a story: whether we like how it ends has nothing to do with it. Carmen is a work of art that doesn’t need to be changed, it already proved it can survive time quite easily without any extra help.
The altered finale is everything but brilliant or useful and it most certainly does not give a new perspective of the opera or underlines some of its subtleties; it’s simply the old trick of drawing a mustache on the Gioconda: it doesn’t better the original, but it gets people to talk.
The revisitation of Carmen falls perfectly in our time when the politically correct must reign over everything and everyone. Art, according to the new inquisitors, must be ethical and must portray its stories in line with the general sense of morality that permeates society. It’s a concept that is, in fact, hundreds of years old and that draws away from the real essence of art itself.
Masterpieces are such because, no matter what, they never get old, not because we adapt them to suit our needs.
Going down this road is as sick as it is insane: in the end, this is not even a matter of pushing for some sort of ethical art (whatever that means) but for a moral control of the role of art and culture in a society. We’ve been down that road before. It led to people burning books.
Quite a disturbing thought.
Griglio – thank you for intelligent thoughts on today’s art “appreciation.” Today’s mindless social fads indicate nothing but stupidity, whether applied to opera, painting or any other form of design & composition. We should not overlook, either, the deceptive harm that current distortions of the legitimate needs of an objective feminism have done to women & girls, emotionally, financially, & medically. Politics, in any case, has always been toxic to art, though in the past rulers (we would like to hope) embodied the values of their cultures – there was no official politics, just display of the power of rule. Today, politics & art alike do little more than embody social spite, envy & simply mediocrity of knowledge, to say nothing of lack of talent. There will always be ignorance & pandering to this absence of artistic expression; & political demagogues will always use it for their own ambitions. Don’t despair – there are stirrings of talent, & the persistence of serious critiques such as your own, that encourage new generations of designers, composers, & even civic-minded politicians.
Thank you for your words of appreciation. And also for taking the time to write your thoughts here!