Orgy and mess

Opera - <strong>Patrick O'Connor</strong> is not shocked by a sleazy new production of <em>Rigoletto

While Verdi was at work on Rigoletto, he made sure that no one could hear in advance the aria that he was convinced would make the biggest impact, "La donna e mobile". This rollicking song in the last scene immediately became, and has remained, one of the most famous tunes in the world. Yet the new production, which opened the season at the Royal Opera House, is the first I have ever heard in which this aria drew no applause from the audience. It was not the fault of Marcelo Alvarez, who is an accomplished interpreter of the role of the libertine Duke; rather, it was the gloomy mood of the whole production, which, by that stage in the evening, had probably depressed most of the average opera-goers present.

Rigoletto is a very unpleasant story. The hunchbacked jester is an unforgiving, malevolent character, and his master, the Duke, is a serial rapist and despot. The courtiers are cruel practical-jokers, and Gilda, Rigoletto's daughter, is a young woman with courage but little imagination. To be a success in musical and dramatic terms - ever since the premiere, there have been jokes about the body in the sack in the final scene - it needs less of a sledgehammer approach than David McVicar's wallow in sleaze. The opening scene is meant to be a party with dancing; instead, we were forced to watch one of those tedious orgies, with girls shaking their breasts out of their bodices, a few same-sex flirtations and then a naked couple being doused in wine to encourage their fornication. It wasn't shocking. (We've seen it all before - the first naked orgy at the Royal Opera House was in Peter Hall's production of Moses and Aaron back in 1965.)

Michael Vales's single set has a high-mirrored wall with a broken portico doorway, which revolves to show the underbelly of society behind it, a rubbish dump of wire netting, corrugated iron and broken fences. McVicar's greatest strength lies in his detailed direction of the smaller roles: characters who have just a line or two to sing emerge as definite personalities. The fault of the production is that it does not allow the character of the Duke to progress from his light-hearted Act 1 aria "Questa o quella", through his romantic Act 2 change of heart, all leading up to the final cynicism of "La donna e mobile". Alvarez is made to play him as the same leader all the way through. Cossutta, Tagliavini, Kraus and Pavarotti, who sang the part in the old Franco Zeffirelli production, were all dangerous charmers. This Duke just seemed like a sulky brute.

Paolo Gavanelli is a magnificent Rigoletto, his singing alive with detail and expressive gradations of tone. Christine Schafer, although her voice is un-Italian in timbre, cuts such a tiny figure beside him that she makes one of the most convincing Gildas I have ever seen. On the first night, a mobile phone went off, and rang for about half a minute, at the climax of her aria "Caro nome". She looked understandably fraught. In the BBC television broadcast a few nights later, the production concentrated viewers' attention on Schafer's face and brought out a more sensitive impression.

What is Rigoletto about? In the TV interval feature, McVicar described his quest for what made Verdi angry, and the idea that there was a sort of Dickensian filth lying beneath all the pseudo-glamorous goings-on at the Duke's court. The story, however, is about hope - as portrayed by Gilda, who dies to save the no-good man she loves - and the uselessness of revenge. Act 3 is meant to take place in a tavern on the banks of the River Mincio, but here, we were just back in the rubbish dump.

Sir Edward Downes conducts with all the energy of a young man, but with a wealth of experience - he is celebrating 50 years at the Royal Opera House this season. On the opening night, the performance was relayed to a big screen in the Covent Garden piazza, where several hundred people endured a very cold evening to watch it.

Between 1971 and 1990, the Royal Opera House had regular seasons of Proms, when the stalls area was cleared of seats, and people queued up to pay a modest entrance fee and take their place near the stage. Anyone who ever attended one of these will confirm that they were among the most exciting evenings ever to take place at Covent Garden. The big screen is fine as far as it goes, but is it really too much to hope that those resilient types sitting on the cobblestones will one day be inside again, rather than out in the cold and wet?

Rigoletto is in repertory at the Royal Opera House, London WC2 (020 7304 4000), until 8 October

Almeida Theatre
Show Hide image

Rupert Goold: “A director always has to be more of a listener”

The artistic director of the Almeida Theatre on working with Patrick Stewart, the inaccessibility of the arts, and directing his wife in Medea.

Eight years ago Rupert Goold’s Macbeth made his name. The critics were unanimous in their praise, with one calling it the “Macbeth of a lifetime”. Goold’s first Olivier Award soon followed (Enron won him a second in 2009, King Charles III nearly won him a third last year). It was a family triumph; Lady Macbeth was played by Goold’s wife, Kate Fleetwood.

Now the pair has finally reunited and Fleetwood is his undisputed lead. She is playing Medea in the Almeida’s latest and final play of its Greek season. Directing your wife is one thing. Directing her in a play about a woman who murders her children because her husband abandons her is another. And it’s been harder than Goold expected.

“You live with someone every day, and they don’t age because the change is so incremental, and then you do something together and you realise how much you’ve changed. It’s like playing tennis with someone after eight years: you’re completely different players.”

As it is, Goold thinks the director-actor relationship is inevitably fraught. “There is an essential slave-master, sadomasochistic, relationship,” he says. “The incredibly complicated thing about being an actor is you’re constantly being told what to do. And one of the most damaging things about being a director – and why most of them are complete arseholes – is because they get off at telling people what to do.”

Goold doesn’t. He’s as amicable in person as the pictures – bountiful hair, loose jacket, wide grin – suggest. And when we meet in the Almedia’s crowded rehearsal rooms, tucked away on Upper Street, 100 yards from the theatre, he’s surprisingly serene given his play is about to open.

He once said that directing a play is like running towards a wall and hoping it becomes a door just before the curtain goes up. Has the door appeared? “It’s always a funny moment [at the end of rehearsal]. Sometimes you do a show and it’s a bit dead and the costumes and set transform it. Then sometimes it’s perfect and the design kills it.”

We meet shortly before last Thursday’s press night, and he can’t tell how good it is. But it “certainly feels quite private. The idea that loads of people are going to come and watch it now feels a bit weird. You bring a lot of your sense of relationships and parenting into it.”

Goold has always argued that the classics wither without intervention. So in this revival of Euripides’ 2,446-year-old play, Medea is a writer and her husband, Jason (of Argonauts fame), is an actor. “But it’s not really about that… it’s more about divorce, about what it means to separate.”

“It’s about the impact of a long-term relationship when it collapses. I don’t know whether there is a rich tradition of drama like that, and yet for most people, those kind of separations are far more profound and complicated and have greater ramifications than first love; and we have millions of plays about first love!”

Every generation discovers their own time in the Greek plays. Goold thinks he and playwright Rachel Cusk were shaped by the aftermath of the 1970s in interpreting Medea; “That’s the period when the idea of the family began to get tainted.” And when critics praised Oresteia, the Almeida’s first Greek play and a surprise West End transfer, they compared it to the Sopranos.

Yet there is something eternal about these plays. Goold says it’s the way they “stare at these problems that are totally perennial, like death,” and then offer answers that aren’t easy. Medea kills the kids and a mother rips her son to shreds in the Bakkhai (the Almeida’s predecessor to Medea). Where’s the moral compass in that?

Except there is a twist in Goold’s Medea, and it’s not one every critic has taken kindly to. It was enough to stop the Telegraph’s Dominic Cavendish, otherwise lavish in his praise, from calling it “a Medea for our times”. Nevertheless, the reviews have been kind, as they often are for Goold; although The Times’ Ann Treneman was vitriolic in her dislike (“Everyone is ghastly. The men are beyond irritating. The women even worse.”).

In theory, Goold welcomes the criticism. “I’d rather our audience hated something and talked about it than was passively pleased,” he tells me ahead of reviews.

Controversial and bracing theatre is what Goold wants to keep directing and producing; as the Almeida’s artistic director he is in charge of more than just his own shows. But how does he do it? I put a question to him: if I had to direct Medea instead of him, what advice would he have given me?

He pauses. “You’ve got to love words,” he begins. “There’s no point doing it unless you have a real delight in language. And you have to have vision. But probably the most important thing is, you’ve got to know how to manage a room.”

“It’s people management. So often I have assistants, or directors I produce, and I think ‘God, they’re just not listening to what that person is trying to say, what they’re trying to give.’ They’re either shutting them down or forcing them into a box.”

“Most people in a creative process have to focus on what they want to say, but a director always has to be more of a listener. People do it different ways. Some people spin one plate incredibly fast and vibrantly in the middle of the room, and hope all the others get sucked in. It’s about thriving off of one person – the director, the lead performer, whomever.”

“I’m more about the lowest common denominator: the person you’re most aware of is the least engaged. You have to keep lifting them up, then you get more creativity coming in.”

It’s not always simple. When actors and directors disagree, the director can only demand so much, especially if the actor is far more famous than them. When Goold directed Macbeth, Patrick Stewart was his lead. Stewart was a movie star and twice his age.

“Patrick’s take on Macbeth… I didn’t think it should be played that way. I’d played him as a student and I had an idea of what he was.”

“But then you think, ‘Ok, you’re never going to be what I want you to be, but actually let me get rid of that, and just focus on what’s good about what you want to be, and get rid of some of the crap.’”

Goold doesn’t think he’s ever really struggled to win an actor’s respect (“touch wood”). The key thing, he says, is that “they just feel you’re trying to make legible their intention”.

And then you must work around your lead. In Macbeth, Stewart was “a big deep river of energy… when normally you get two people frenetically going ‘Uhgh! Is this a dagger I see before me! Uhgh!’ and there’s lots of hysteria.”

“So we threw all sorts of other shit at the production to compensate, to provide all the adrenalin which Patrick was taking away to provide clarity and humanity.”

Many people want to be theatre directors, and yet so few are successful. The writers, actors and playwrights who sell shows can be counted on a few hands. Depressingly, Goold thinks it’s becoming harder to break in. It’s difficult to be discovered. “God, I don’t know, what I worry – wonder – most is: ‘Are there just loads of great directors who don’t make it?’”

 The assisting route is just not a good way to find great new directors. “The kind of people who make good assistants don’t make good directors, it’s almost diametrically opposite.” As for regional directors, newspaper budgets have collapsed, so they can no longer rely on a visit from a handful of national critics, as Goold did when he was based in Salisbury and Northampton. And audiences for touring shows have, by some measures, halved in the past twenty years.

Theatre has also evolved. When Goold was coming through, “There were not a lot of directors who felt they were outside the library, so for me to whack on some techno was radical! Now it’d be more commonplace.” New directors have to find new ways to capture our attention – or at least the critics’.

But the critics have changed too. A nod from a critic can still be vital in the right circles, but the days when critics “made” directors is long over. “I remember Nick de Jongh saying, ‘Oh Rupert Goold, I made him.’ Because he’d put Macbeth on the front page of the Standard. I owed my career to him, and in some ways I did! But it's an absurd idea, that would not happen now.”

“It’s all changed so much in literally the past three years. There was a time, for better or worse, when you had a big group of establishment critics: de Jongh, Michael Billington, Michael Coveney, Charlie Spencer – they were mostly men – Susannah Clapp. And if they all liked your show, you were a hit.” (“They could be horrible,” he adds.)

“Now I get more of a sense of a show by being on Twitter than reading the reviews.” It’s “probably a good thing”, Goold thinks, and it certainly beats New York, where a single review – the New York Times' – makes or breaks plays. But it’s another problem for aspiring directors, who can no longer be so easily plucked from the crowd.

It’s no longer a problem Goold needs to overcome. His star could wane, but he seems likely to be among the leading voices in British theatre for a while yet.

Harry Lambert is a staff writer and editor of May2015, the New Statesman's election website.