Cendrillon, Glyndebourne Tour review - too many ingredients in the magic soup | reviews, news & interviews
Cendrillon, Glyndebourne Tour review - too many ingredients in the magic soup
Cendrillon, Glyndebourne Tour review - too many ingredients in the magic soup
Young singers risk getting lost in the clutter of Fiona Shaw's over-loaded production
Supernatural wonders, consciously avoided in Rossini's enlightened tale of goodness rewarded La Cenerentola and unrealised by second-rank composer Isouard in his 1810 Cendrillon, recently uneathed by Bampton Classical Opera, flood Massenet's gem-studded version of the Cinderella story. For a contemporary production to avoid visual representation to match would be foolhardly; but to yoke magic to an alternative narrative can also be confusing.
Surely, though, this needs to be a winner to delight the whole family as Glyndebourne tours the country. It could be. Massenet and his librettist Henri Cain put the midnight flight at the central point, with two acts still to go, and younger children might wriggle a bit here, though the scene where Cendrillon/Lucette is reunited with her Prince Charming in a dream-sequence under an enchanted oak is the musical-dramatic climax of the opera, and the one point where everything comes together in this production.Coloratura soprano Caroline Wettergren as a suitably strange, coolly smoking Fairy Godmother (pictured above) strings together pearls on a line of absolute perfection; the passion of Alix Le Saux's sweet Cinders and Eleonore Pancrazi's impassioned Prince - almost a match for Alice Coote in Laurent Pelly's Royal Opera near-winner - truly ignites. The hall of mirrors which obstructs the progress of a nightmarish ball sequence actually fits the original scenario at this point - and yes, there are real trees, as there weren't in the one weak scene of the Pelly Cendrillon.
Elsewhere, if adults are going to be asking who, where, why and what, how will it be for kids? Who's the dancing man in the dumbshow at the start? Is the ball only an illusion featuring Cendrillon's dream-double (some admittedly pretty/fantastical symmetries here)? What are the consequences of the "Prince" turning into a serving-maid just when we need to believe that the love is real? Too little can be made out in Anna Watson's over-dark lighting. though I understand the purpose, to create a phantasmagorical space; and Nicky Gillibrand's costumes don't go far enough in terms of grotesquerie for the stepsisters (Eduarda Melo and Kezia Bienek, not given enough help to be funny). Contemporary bling is amusing but doesn't quite match Massenet's neoclassical pastiche in Act One. The dressing-up and later the striptease of their mother, Madame de la Haltière, is genuinely funny, from Eastenders' Pat Butcher to Ivana Trump and back, especially in cahoots with the formidable chest voice of game contralto Agnes Zwierko (pictured below on the right with Bienek, Le Saux and Melo). William Dazeley produces sympathetic tones as Cendrillon's hapless father, but needs more help with characterisation from Shaw; too often you see characters taking up props just for the hell of it rather than out of believable motivation. The ever-dependable Glyndebourne Chorus could do with sharpening up in their servant routines, too, though I like their mixing with the real dancers in a full rendering of the ballroom divertissement (some witty choreography from Sarah Fahie). Duncan Ward's conducting is elegant and keen of movement, but needs a touch more vivacity. There's a lot to sort out before this Cendrillon reaches the main festival next year; let's hope Shaw can be persuaded to strip back some of the business. Less is always more, as Massenet's music enchantingly demonstrates.
rating
Explore topics
Share this article
The future of Arts Journalism
You can stop theartsdesk.com closing!
We urgently need financing to survive. Our fundraising drive has thus far raised £33,000 but we need to reach £100,000 or we will be forced to close. Please contribute here: https://gofund.me/c3f6033d
And if you can forward this information to anyone who might assist, we’d be grateful.
Subscribe to theartsdesk.com
Thank you for continuing to read our work on theartsdesk.com. For unlimited access to every article in its entirety, including our archive of more than 15,000 pieces, we're asking for £5 per month or £40 per year. We feel it's a very good deal, and hope you do too.
To take a subscription now simply click here.
And if you're looking for that extra gift for a friend or family member, why not treat them to a theartsdesk.com gift subscription?