Le Nozze di Figaro

I went to two of the most familiar operas in the repertoire this week, one in HD from the New York Met, the other at the Royal Opera. Both were given in decent if not, with some exceptions, outstanding performances. The experiences led me to think again about the differences between seeing an opera onstage in a theatre and seeing one ‘live’ in the cinema. Our intermission hostess, Renée Fleming, repeated the usual formula about how there is no substitute for actually being present in the theatre where the opera is taking place, but I wonder what she would say if challenged on that point.

There is a question of priorities, I think: if you go primarily to see one or more stars, then you will feel it is important that you are actually in their presence, and may well indulge in the fantasy that they are singing partly to you. And certainly if the stars are big enough, Callas, for example, or Hans Hotter, the experience of being in the same space as they are is likely to be overwhelming, though that is not primarily an artistic matter. Then there is — or was — the phenomenon of the communal experience, but that is, for almost all operatic occasions, a thing of the past. It is most likely to be found now, discreditably, in Italian opera houses, where the main reason for attendance is to hear one of the singers crack on a high note and be humiliated and with any luck booed off the stage. But opera in Italy is not primarily an artistic experience, more like a sporting one. And when you think of the involvement of a football crowd in the game, you realise how remote that is from almost any occasion you are likely to witness or participate in at Covent Garden.

Most popular

Brendan O’Neill

The moment in the ‘grooming gangs’ debate that shamed Jess Phillips

So if you go to an operatic performance primarily to experience the work, hopefully with high-class performers, I’m not at all sure that you won’t do far better to go to a cinema, unless you can afford one of the best seats in the opera house.