I had the great pleasure of seeing the open rehearsal of the Met's "Anna Bolena" starring Anna Netrebko. For Mr. Tommasini's review in the New York Times, click
here. I completely disagree with his view of the production and direction and singing, but his article has nice pictures and videos. However, this isn't a critical rebuttal to his article; but rather, I would like to discuss the female role in opera and the opera's role in the society it was written for (in 1830).
Anna Bolena- the opera- based on the execution of Anne Boleyn- has nothing to do with any historical fact. In fact, she is quite opposite from the truth- as described in the program notes. The librettist just did what we do now- take famous historical stories and reinvent them for commercial success- just like Broadway with movie scripts and cable with The Tudors, Spartacus, The Borgias, etc.
However, what makes this opera so intriguing is that it is completely historically inaccurate. In fact, just like today- it's so false that it has to be a reflection of the time in which it was written. And what is about is women.
First, the 2 women- Anna Bolena- and her lady in Waiting- Giovanna (yep- that's Jane Seymour folks!) are completely trapped. Anna is married to a king, who previous got rid of his first wife, and she is worried he has the same ideas for her. Henry has eyes for Giovanna- and she can't say no because he is the king. Ironically, they both sing about fate and the heavens- as having no choice over their situation- but I think a better word would be "husband" and "lover/king". And, conveniently- the "heavens" have made both women fall in love with him, too, because its better to pretend this desperate feeling they feel is love and not slavery.
We move to the 2nd act- the famous scene between Anna and Giovanna. Giovanna finally tells Anna she is the king's mistress and Anna, through bitter tears, tells Giovanna that she forgives her and leaves it again to the heavens. I would like to interpret this as Anna forgiving Giovanna because she too understands her fate as a woman- that she has no choice- and knows it's up to Henry, aka "the heavens" as to what the next step is. Of course, this being an opera- there is romantic jealousies at play- but I believe Anna Netrebko played the scene with much texture by adding this subtext and I think it was brilliant.
Meanwhile, Anna's old lover, Percy, ruins it all because he has to take credit for having Anna love him first and for Anna maybe being married to him first (which would make her marriage to Henry false and therefore his plea on adultery invalid). This just pissed me off. I wanted to scream- "Shut up!! Henry was forgiving her and then you come in and ruin it! Why did you come at all?!" Well- he came because he is a man- fate/heavens- and his point of view takes precedence over Anna's. Furthermore, when she doesn't deny that she married Percy first- I think this is the beginning of the unraveling to Anna's madness. I state this because the entire 1st act, and prior scene with Giovanna, is about her honor- and her daughter's honor. Why would she forsake all of that? And, if Anna really married against her will (aka- it was the "heavens" that made her do it)- couldn't she have used Percy to defend her then?
Then, Anna goes mad.
So- what reflection of society am I seeing here?
Well- Violetta- written about 20 years later- is also about a woman stuck. She has no choice and leaves it to fate to forgive her. When Alfredo comes in, as she lays dying, she is forgiven and knows that she will have a cross and flowers and tears at her grave- her dying wish. Something, about 2 minutes prior, she was very fearful she would never have.
I, thanks to women's lib, have no idea what this feels like. And, for this to be such a strong theme during this time, these tragic notions that woman have no power and it's up to God to figure it out- that this runs so pervasive throughout all repertoire at this time- is something I think we women actors today take advantage of. Or, at least- I do!! Women had no choice- they didn't even know what that word meant. This total disregard of "choice" was so integrated into society that it seeped through each scene as fact- like rain or sunshine or crying babies. And, if a woman was stuck in the situation society put her in, she went mad or was forgiven at the last moment by a man. Finally, stacked on top of this lays the action, the characters, the singing, the music.
As a side note- despite Tommasini's opinion, I thought the McVicar's direction was brilliant. Because the scenery wasn't distracting, because the costumes were to the period, because McVicar let the actors do their job- I saw a story behind the disguise of this ridiculous false plot.
