Gurnemanz - Franz-Josef Selig
Parsifal - Klaus Florian Vogt
Kundry - Anja Kampe
Amfortas - Detlef Roth
Klingsor - Evgeny Nikitin
Titurel - Ante Jerkunica
Bailarín - Joaquín Fernández
Coro y Orquesta Titulares del Teatro Real
Director - Claus Guth
Conductor - Semyon Bychkov
I had chosen to see the performances of Parsifal in Madrid twice not only because of the attractive casting, but a second viewing was essential for a thorough understanding of Claus Guth's insightful staging. My past experience of Guth's stagings of Der Rosenkavalier for Frankfurt opera and Fidelio at Salzburg Festival not always straight forward at first viewing. It took some time to digest and think on the directorial approach to make sense of the underlying messages and intentions. Although Guth's staging of Parsifal visually not always a beauty for the eyes, the interpretation seems conventional in sight but always there is a twist. Inevitably three debatable questions arose from discussions with my friends, which whether the directorial approach suggesting the work itself was religiously symbolic in the context of Christianity, the relationship between Amfortas and Klingsor a family one or brotherhood within an institution, why Amfortas struggled or even refused to perform the holy ritual and only Parsifal became the redeemer. The work itself had created endless interpretations but this review would address Guth's approach in context than making other assumptions, otherwise it would lose the focus and fail from a logical reflection.
Instead of a castle surrounding, the first act was set in a hospital for wounded soldiers, a reference to act three mentioning the casualties of wars. Guth's trademark of stage turntable showed us a reception area with staircase, another room in two floors and the other a large hall with balcony. Each section of the space has its defined purpose and points of actions. The messages were clear in scenes and circular movements of the turntable made a statement. The reception was on purposefully to be bleak and unwelcoming. Its purpose was what triggered off the story development, often the platform for Gurnemanz's narration of the past and preaching his thoughts. The hall was a display of members and large scene in scale.
The room separated in two half was most interesting with cases of the holy spear and grail on the upper level, in contrast to ground level where all woes and wrongdoings happened. Symbolically it associated with the paradigm of upper room: the last supper, washing of the feets, resurrection and Pentecost, which centred on the christian core belief in redemption of sins through the death and resurrection sequence of Christ. The room was not only for storage and display of mystical wonder, but importantly presenting the causes of what went wrong inside the institution among its leadership, and the pains Amfortas suffered from performing the ritual that supposedly to save the knights from destruction. The absence of either the holy item would bring harm by its power than doing good.
Gurnemanz's narration in first act saw Kundry being hapless to heal nor improve the situation. Even the herbs she brought from Arabia would only relieve Amfortas's sufferings but not improving. The scene of holy bath was not shown but one could assume nothing extraordinary. She was also trapped by her loyalties to both evils and goods. She saw the decline but ironically brought the destruction upon the Knights on behalf of Klingsor, as revenge on being treated unfairly by Titurel. Her seduction of Amfortas made him weak in flesh even as lord of lineage to the supposed powerful keeper of the sacred vessels. It was no wonder she laughed sarcastically by seeing wounded soldiers suffered on bed and the falling was destined as no one could prevent the destruction of themselves. Interestingly the doctors and nurses were supposedly to heal and care for the suffering ones, but their blind following of orders and rules indirectly accelerate the destruction.
I thought by portraying Gurnemanz as a ordained Christian priest was an indirect statement from Guth, which suggesting dated beliefs and ritualistic performance of the church were ineffective to renew this organisation. Forcing soldiers to sing hymns, falling to their knees to pray and worshipping were seen as abstract and alien, neither to inspire the members where they should be going forward to. He also did not prevent other soldiers nor the medical staffs to bully the dancer, who represented the pains and agony suffered by Amfortas by physical expression in movements. It was as the character just an ordinary soldier driven to madness by wounds from war, but we as spectator understood who he was portraying in actual.
Various approaches differed on who demanded Amfortas to perform the ritual and its purpose. For example from Munich, the Konwitschny's production saw the knights blaming Amfortas for not able to revive the tree of life and the life in bunker. The recent Viennese version saw a frantic male religious organisation put women and children as sacrificial prisoners in the dark dungeon but Amfortas was a character to perform. Guth saw differently by emphasising the role of Titurel more important than the other two. In reference to the close relation between the old King and Klingsor, the extra scene during the playing of prelude we saw Klingsor was visibly upset and crushed the wine glass when Titurel favoured Amfortas over a meal. Later the old king created the suffering by forcing Amfortas to perform the tortuous ceremony and opened his wounds for the supposed blood for eucharist. The ritual was an obsession/madness for desire than any miracle for the fragile souls and body.
I felt Parsifal's silence response to Gurnemanz's demand of answer was not foolish or incapable here, but shocked by the awfulness of the cruel ritual as witness. Amfortas desired for death to release himself from the burden made the point someone else would need another way to become a redeemer to bring upon the salvation. Parsifal understood to save the organisation from deterioration was to experience the sufferings and conquered the temptations. The holy tools were to be united for its divine power and he himself by experiencing holy wars would be one answer, just as Christ went to test in the wilderness for forty days and resisting temptations.
Though whether Parsifal acts as a copy of Christ's death and resurrection for redemption was not the the point Guth probably felt on the composer's objective in creating work. Salvation here was not at all spiritual but rather a management rescue process. Also to become the redeemer of a new belief it required three core elements: knowing his actual background and released himself from the past, which Kundry nor Amfortas failed to do so as they were trapped by the situation; the mentioned task to unite the holy tools but not using to wield power in wars and a physical endurance to overcome at hard condition; also the ability to resist physical and emotional affections.
Nowhere was the last point being mentioned as a sin, but love would not help the leader to stay strong and protect the institution from decay, which was a direct response to the ring cycle that Siegfried and Brunnhilde brought the downfall of gods than saving it. Thus, Parsifal would need to experience by resisting the temptation of falling in love with Kundry and remain celibacy for purity in order to become the redeemer. Instead of a colourful garden, Guth set act two like a ball in the fashion of Edwardian era. The realism made an intimate setting for the flower maidens and Kundry with flamboyant outlooks to keep the men falling under their spells. It was not a demonstration for lust or physical satisfaction, but guiding us through the process to search the purpose and role for the protagonist. Despite Parsifal and Kundry had moments of intense affections, in the end he realised it would require himself to release everyone from their agony by going one step forward than enjoying the earthly satisfaction.
Act three then presented the ultimate vision of what Guth felt the composer was experimenting with his philosophical construction for the new religion. Resisting the temptation of affection did not mean a total rejection of companionship. Parsifal had the silenced Kundry cleansed with water from the holy fountain after he received it from Gurnemanz. The baptism was a symbolic moment that a new way was found and received to transform the deserted hospital in a dilapidated state, which Gurnemanz still guarding for the foretold restoration and the expected new leader. Kundry in return cleaned Parsifal's feet with hair and rubbed with oil. While he blamed himself for their sufferings, he recovered the insane soldiers to sanity and stopped their agony. The implicit biblical references to the acts of Mary Magdalene at last supper and performance of miracles by Christ reinforced the argument that Guth saw the composer the biblical reference to construct his belief/new religion from the core Christian beliefs. One could not separate the two as it was the basis which Wagner built his theory on before evolving into a new ideology. Though the materials might be similiar but one could feel the difference in which two ideology develop.
The whole institution lost its direction and driven to illogical madness at Titurel's death and his funeral. The crowd themselves now demanding Amfortas the performance of the ritual, who would prefer dying to relieve his suffering instead, and thought it would save them all as the mad king thought. The entry of Parsifal with holy spear came to an unexpected development as result. It was odd and unexpected when Guth portrayed the protagonist to become the new military leader of the institute, a respond to Parsifal asking to be crowded king of all. The soldiers recovered from their wartime shadow, strengthened, atmospherically proud and glorified the renewed military might. Perhaps it was on purpose that we should feel uncomfortable by what perceived as an outcome, in parallel towards the end of First World War that celebration came first than a sorrow remembrance. We would find it politically incorrect for our time but one should be mindful back then it was the norm. The development was logical within the historical time frame and nothing shocking. Guth seems suggesting Wagner's search to construct his new religion actually a dangerous idea at the end, and in broad religion itself would create problematic idea like nationalism. We were also left with the open question as whether Klingsor and Amfortas, as they sat next to each other in the end, reconciled on what relation level? Could now Parsifal restore the glory or it was only the end of everything?
Musically in general the Thursday performance was better than Monday in terms of coordination and tempo. Semyon Bychkov knew better how to conduct the work than the disastrous performance of Beethoven fourth symphony I experienced in Rome few years ago. There were enough space in the playing that neither hurried or too slow. The Teatro Real orchestra could produce a magnificent sound particularly during climatic tutti moments with choral singing. Act two was most satisfactory by keeping a good momentum in shaping the music but sluggish sometimes in other two acts. That was probably why I felt the playing not always making the emotional impact despite refined playing. Board tempo was not a problem for this work but it needed some direction than suspending too much. There were also two obvious slips on Thursday with a cello entered too early after a fermata and the brass playing wrong notes in act one. Despite the mistakes, the hall acoustic should be credited for a good sound balance, which the orchestral sound never drowned out the singer and neither the singers had to be forceful with volumes.
I was not as critical as my friends about Detlef Roth's Amfortas that vocally he was capable and pleasant for ears despite losing some focus with phrasing towards the end probably due to tiredness. Ante Jerkunica made an impression as Titurel not only because of the role emphasis more in Guth's staying, but also his voice delivered the impact of a rich sound filling the hall very well. Franz-Josef Selig might not be the most radiant Gurnemanz I heard so far because of his timbre not always had the warmth nor rich, nonetheless, he phrased the singing line in a good shape. Klaus Florian Vogt's Parsifal was probably the best available tenor at the moment that the tenderness and legato in his timbre still maintained the vocal presence and a wonderful sense with phrasing. He also did not have problem with the words for those who remembered him struggled with the prize song in Der Meistersinger from Staatsoper Berlin last year. Evgeny Nikitin was again vocally an underwhelming experience that he sang beautifully but lacked the projection like the rest. Anja Kempe was so far the better sung Kundry I heard so far in live. She had a healthy voice and could be beautiful from time to time. Her tessitura was more secured to nail the high notes at the dramatic moment in second act on Thursday than Monday. It seems Bychkov had adopted a quicker tempo to accommodate those texting and challenging vocal passages. The female vocal ensemble delivered probably the best sung version of flower maidens scene in my memory. Individual voices complemented each other very much and technically all capable without slips or making any ugly sound. The male chorus delivered a better sound of wall on Thursday than Monday. The German diction was clearly understood and maintained good intonation throughout. On Monday the amplification of female choral singing was problematic by being too loud and imbalance with the live singing. Intonation on high vocal registers were better though compare to Thursday which often went flat noticeably. In sum, very fine performances of Parsifal from Teatro Real that musically more even together with a well matched vocal cast.
