Comments on: Parsifal

By: Michael Otsuka

Michael Otsuka — Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:38:08 +0000

‘Ms Arafat’ is virtually an anagram for ‘Amfortas’. (What you actually get is ‘Amfartas’, but close enough.) So, in the jihad version, Amfortas should be depicted as a suffering Arafat under house arrest and forced by his Western persecutors to wear drag.

By: Chris Bertram

Chris Bertram — Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:10:54 +0000

Thanks very much for the comments here. Especially to Thomas Dent – your thoughts on Act 2 will heighten my appreciation next time I listen. I’ve never seen the Syberberg film—and I’m not sure I want to—I suppose the actors are miming to the pre-recorded sound of Jordan & co because the singers don’t play the parts in the film.

By: Vinteuil

Vinteuil — Mon, 15 Dec 2003 17:22:37 +0000

The Armin Jordan version mentioned by Chris Bertram is the soundtrack to a 1982 film directed by Syberberg which is available on DVD. Visually striking at times, but definitely odd. Nazi paraphernalia, two different actors playing Parsifal (one male, one female)—that sort of thing. The only video competition is a more traditional Met production from 1993 directed by Levine. Some good singing, but there’s nothing in the staging that you’re likely to want to sit still for more than once.

By: tim

tim — Mon, 15 Dec 2003 14:57:00 +0000

I appreciate the CD recommendations, but opera is for watching, not just listening. Any recommended DVDs of this work?

By: TomD

TomD — Mon, 15 Dec 2003 10:54:04 +0000

I thought the point of the red dress would be precisely the sexual – Oedipal – tension. Kundry’s seduction makes powerful use of Parsifal’s relationship with his mother, so perhaps the enormous red dress was meant as a womb-symbol. Your travesty fails not because it’s about jihadis, but because it leaves out Wagner’s central character Amfortas, (at least the one with which he most identified) and the central motto “Through pity knowing”. The climactic moment of Act 2 isn’t so much about Parsifal’s relationship with Kundry as that with Amfortas. Unfortunately this psychological point is difficult to bring out on stage. The ‘womb-symbol’ would have to become a ‘wound-symbol’, which a ten-foot red dress isn’t really in a position to do. Also, the music of the second half of Act 2 is for me somewhat disjointed, lacking continuity and logical progression. My guess is that Wagner was relying on the music to deal with the entire, highly-convoluted psychological situation, but to judge by the usual misunderstanding of why Parsifal doesn’t go for Kundry it didn’t really work. Tristan act 2, by contrast, works musically 100 percent, but again usually fails to explain its highly complicated philosophy and psychology to the audience. Wagner’s instincts as a composer were much better than his attempts at being a philosopher, and I think Parsifal has a bit too much of the latter. The point of Act 3 is not that the camp gets “back to normal” but that its religion is reformed – away from the rather hearty belligerence of the Act 1 hymns and the self-flagellation of the interim to – well, what? It’s not quite clear, but for the opera to have a point, something has to have changed. The symbolism of a spear being used for healing should be a powerful one, but Wagner doesn’t really tell us what the Knights will be getting up to in the future. A mass wedding of Knights and Flower-maidens would be a good start, methinks.

By: Vinteuil

Vinteuil — Sun, 14 Dec 2003 23:15:16 +0000

Speaking of Naxos bargains, don’t forget Mark Obert-Thorn’s astonishing transfers of Karl Muck’s Act I prelude, Grail Scene, Flower-maidens scene, and almost complete Act 3, recorded in Bayreuth and Berlin, 1927-8. As close to the horse’s mouth as any of us will ever get. Featuring the unforgettable sound of the bells of Montsalvat, cast according to Wagner’s personal specifications, but now lost forever—melted down for bullets by the Third Reich. And no—Naxos isn’t even paying me for this. Why pay for what you can get free?