Customer Reviews

Gounod - Faust

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

This live performance (1985) from Vienna's famous State Opera House has a solid cast, except for the director. Araiza and Benackova have the appropriate lyric voices for Faust and Marguerite. Araiza performs a very sensitive and worshipful cavatina, "Salut! Demeure." Benackova does her best to express an innocent excitement upon viewing herself with a crown of jewels in the famous "Jewel Song," but it seems out of place with her nun's attire. (Yes, in Act II, she is packaged as a nun!) Raimondi has a smooth and strong voice, even though he lacks the devilish and sarcastic coloring of the late Nicolai Ghiaurov. The picture (somewhat grainy), and the sound quality are superior to the current list of Faust DVD's. For the most part, the sets are impressive--but not necessarily appropriate--and rather somber. The opera opens and closes in Faust's spacious study with a symbolic view of the sky and higher realm. The opera often resembles a ballet as dancers appear as apparitions to accompany the vocalists.

In the notes that accompany the DVD, we learn that the director, Ken Russell, wanted to make the seduction of Marguerite, in his words, less "silly" and more "realistic" and "vivid." (It should be noted that Russell's reading, assuming he read Goethe's first part, is at odds with most reviews of Faust.) To add "realism" to Faust's conquest and Marguerite's punishment, there are some symbolic sets, costumes, and scenes that will strike many viewers as rather bizarre and sometimes offensive. To prepare the viewer, here are a few examples of why this production was very controversial. Instead of an attractive vision of Marguerite in front of a spinning wheel, we see a rather unalluring image of a woman sending a cryptic message by way of sign language--probably not the kind of image that would have prompted the aging Faust to sign a contract with the devil. In the famous and romantic garden scene, Marguerite appears fully dressed as a nun, and her garden is paved in stone rather than plants. Apparently, her religious habit is not very disconcerting to the arduous Faust because, after their duet, we see them rolling together on the pavement, in one of the strangest seduction scenes in the history of opera. Finally, Russell decides to focus on Marguerite's punishment for murdering her illegitimate child rather than her pardon and redemption. Instead of angels bearing her spirit heavenward, we see and hear the sound of a guillotine. In the closing scene, Faust is back in his study and seated in front of Marguerite's casket. As a morbid reminder of their indiscretions, a headless corpse rises and falls inside the casket.

Symbolic sets, costumes, and scenes serve a very useful purpose when they clarify and enhance the spirit of the story and nature of the characters. Unfortunately, Russell's symbolism distorts what both Goethe and Gounod had in mind, and they probably would have strongly disapproved of Russell's alterations to the theme and depiction of Marguerite. For example, both Goethe and Gounod focused on Marguerite's redemption and not her punishment, and neither one of them would have pictured her as a nun in a bizarre seduction scene. Goethe once claimed that his nature was too conciliatory to compose a true tragedy. The end of the second part reunites the lovers in heaven to the devil's disappointment. Gounod has been criticized, often unfairly, for not following the classic poem more closely. In order to produce a popular and entertaining opera, Gounod did leave out sections of the story, but he remained true to the spirit of Goethe's Faust. In addition to being a composer of operas and religious music, Gounod was a literary scholar who wrote reviews. No doubt there is an audience for Russell's attempt to revise one of the greatest poetic masterpieces in literature--probably the same audience who would like to see Mephistopheles dressed as a priest and conducting the sacraments. However, more knowledgeable fans of the poem and opera are likely to find his revisions disconcerting and inappropriate. This production is probably worth four stars if you are willing to overlook the director's misconceived symbolism. Alas, it appears that Faust lovers will have to continue to wait for an outstanding production of Gounod's great opera on DVD.

The famous ballet scene was omitted. They made Margeurite a nun which she never was, and it just doesn't work. Worst of all, they altered the original ending which depicted forgiveness and salvation (visually and in words and music)into a visually ghastly, gruesome scene totally inconsistent with the celestial music. Such changes to a masterpiece, whether it be a famous opera, as here, or to a Rembrandt cannot be justified, whether under a banner of "creativity" or any other.

Great listening, but the production is so poorly conceived and gimicky that it is impossible to watch. A terrible disappointment.

This production of Gounod's masterpiece was clearly not created with the intention of being perfectly traditional, and I'm sure the director was prepared to offend some viewers with this idea of his. I purchased this DVD because I really wanted a filmed production, and this was one of the few available. I read what a lot of other viewers said about this particular production, and I was actually intrigued by what was said. The production certainly is different, and a few of the ideas are pretty out there.

What most people seem to dislike about this the most is the ending, but I believe they probably misunderstood it. The booklet inside the DVD case has a synopsis, and it still says that Marguerite goes to heaven at the end. What happens in this production is that instead of showing Marguerite's ascension to heaven, it cuts back to Faust, old again and suddenly waking up in his study from Act I. It then shows him standing up and wandering around, as if it had all been just a dream, then he opens the coffin that was laid there at the beginning, and Marguerite's headless corpse sits up and points a finger at him, just like all the other characters had pointed a finger at her in the church scene earlier. After this, Faust is embraced by what looks like a grim reaper, then sinks into the earth as he is dragged off to hell. What it seems people want to see at the very end of this opera is Marguerite's ascention into heaven. My guess is that this director figured that much was told by the music, and so Faust's fate was what should be depicted, which would be damnation. It is a darker, more grim ending, but I have to admit, if given a chance for what it is, I'd say it's actually a decent production. It certainly won't please everybody, but it certainly has its moments of being quite interesting.

One thing I doubt anyone will dispute about it is that the singers are wonderful. Francisco Araiza beautifully performs the title role; I believe he is perfect for it. He beautifully hits the high C in "Salut, demeure, chaste et pure", which is an impressive feat for any tenor, as far as I am concerned. Ruggero Raimondi is a fantastic Méphistophélès, as well. I, personally, prefer the role when played by a bass-baritone rather than a deep bass, and his voice is a good fit for it, in my opinion. There is an optional high note that I like, but he doesn't take in the first act, but I believe it is not often taken, anyway. Gabriela Benyachkova certainly performs the role as well as she could, and I give her credit for her input. She certainly has a fine voice, but I personally prefer the role to be portrayed by someone smaller and/or younger. Marguerite is depicted in the libretto by Jules Barbier and Michel Carré as a sweet, innocent little girl who has never committed sin or impurity until her encounter with Faust. As fine a singer as she is, I believe Benyachkova is a little too old to portray it the way it was traditionally intended to be done. When she is made a nun, though, she is more convincing as a character. I have to admit, however, I do not particularly like to see a little boy like Siebel falling in love with a nun the way he does in this production. As for the rest of the cast, Walton Grönroos is a very good Valentiin, and hits the high Gs beautifully

The idea of making her purity be due to the fact that she was a nun could potentially be passable, but I it isn't easy to make it work, mostly because of Siebel being in love with her, too. I acknowledge Ken Russell's attempt, though. It is could be interesting that Faust would end up falling in love with nun who is older, as he is still just an old doctor in a young lord's body, and perhaps the fact that she is a nun could show how Faust has it buried back in his conscience that he still believes in God and regrets what he has done. This is could be backed up by the fact that he is rude to Méphistophélès throughout the opera (constantly yelling things at him like "Va t'en!", which means "Go away!"), despite the work he does as Faust's servant.

There are some traditional elements of this opera that I hate to see go, including Marguerite's traditional portrayal, but the opera certainly has its moments. There were, however, a couple of things I admit I did not like, such as the placement of the Church Scene at the end of Act IV (after Valentin's death instead of before). This is not the point at which it occurs in the libretto, and it is even reinforced that it should not be where it is by the fact that Act IV Scene I (which is often omitted) is included in this production (which, by the way, I found surprising and worth appreciating; a scene included that is usually not is interesting to me) However, Marguerite says, "I'm going to the church to pray for my child and for him" at the end of this scene, which implies that she is going to the church after this. This suggests that the Church scene is about to happen, and audiences do not get to hear this scene performed often, anyway. Also, during Valentin's Death, he repeats, "Marguerite, soit maudite!", which Méphistophélès also sings in the Church Scene on a similar musical motive. I like it better when Valentin's is said afterward as a reference to what Marguerite heard in the church, rather than Méphistophélès' being a reference to Valentin's. The traditional placement of these scenes works better dramatically than the way done in this production, which is not very good writing. I also found it annoying that Marguerite is executed by the guillotine. Maybe historical accuracy was not much of a concern for the director, but it should be well-known enough that such an instrument was only used in public executions during the French Revolution. It's too big an anachronism for me to be willing to just ignore.

Since Act IV Scene I is included, I would like to have heard Siebel's aria, "Si Le Bonheur", and I was disappointed not to. However, I can forgive it's deletetion, as it usually is, anyway. Also, in Méphistophélès' "Song of the Golden Calf" ("Le veau d'or"), Raimondi accidentally sings the second verse twice. This, however, would only be noticeable to an opera singer or a musician who knows the piece extremely well, and it's still well sung, so I forgive him.

It would also have been nice to see the Walpurgis Night scene, but this is rarely performed in modern productions, anyway. I really wish the unions would not charge opera companies extra to use the house for longer; if it weren't for this, it would be possible for them to give longer productions, which might allow such scenes to be included. The Walpurgis Night scene is referenced in the recitative immediately proceeding Méphistophélès' serenade, and it is a fine sounding piece of music; I really wish I could see a production in which it would be included. Perhaps it may seem like a financial risk, but I believe that it would be a good idea to do it if a production is being filmed. People would much rather have more scenes to watch on a DVD that are not usually performed.

Overall, this production is good enough to get a 4/5 from me. It's not perfect, and it's certainly not exactly what everyone wants to see when they go to see Gounod's amazing work that was once the most frequently performed opera in all of Europe, but for what it is, it has it's good points, and I can find plenty of things about it that deserve to be appreciated.

The sound quality of this recording was so bad that I returned the item to Amazon. I don't know whether it was a defective disc or just a bad job of recording.

I am trying really hard to like this, and I am sure the actual stage production was utterly mindblowing (I managed to see Russell's "Madama Butterfly" in Charleston, SC many moons ago, and it was quite a feast of the senses), but I can't help but think that the video production (directed by Ken Russell, no less) is quite erratic and makes very little sense! Or, maybe it was that the stage was super-packed with character and action (I do recall alot of movement in the "Madama Butterfly" production) and it was darn near impossible for the camera to pick out any discernable detail. I won't give away any plot details (what little I could discern) except to say that the ending camera shot left me totally bewildered. Was the audience seeing the same thing? Did Ken Russell actually miss the "money" shot when he was videotaping? Huh? So, sad to say, a rather lackluster video production of what was probably a super-charged intense Ken Russell experience. However, it does make one wish he or she was there!

(I'm sometimes quite late with my reviews, perhaps because I wanted to process what I'd viewed. Also, am correcting typos I made, because of passion when typing the first version of this review. Furthermore, usually I'd give a classic some four or five stars, but in this case, I must speak, because I never saw such direction like Ken Russell's; he detracts from the work of exquisite performers.)

During spring and summer, I watched this rendition of Gounod's "Faust" several times. Glad that I also bought one of the other versions, and that the other (nicer) version of Gounod's "Faust" (Nicolai Ghiaurov as "Mephisto" and Renata Scotto as "Marguerite") arrived shortly afterward.

This (Ken Russell's direction) was the first one shipped to me. WHEN I SAW THE ENDING, ESPECIALLY WITH MARGUERITE BEING RE-ANIMATED AS A HEADLESS GHOUL AND DENIED HER ENTRY INTO HEAVEN, -- I -- WAS -- CURSING -- WITH -- ANGER -- !!!! (I remember at least screaming "DAMN IT!" out loud!) How could the ending be like that?!

It's not the fault of Ruggero Raimondi. This is the first opera that featured Raimondi (and my first "Faust") that I ever bought, and he was awesome. His interpretation of Mephistopheles was magnificent, and that scene with him gobbling a "wooden" cross that turned out to actually be made of chocolate, was a rather cute scene. There's nothing wrong with Raimondi.

(I also remember one of the soldier-guys doing a really good job. He's the one with the craggy cheeks, and you can see the passion in his eyes at the end of "Le Veau D'Or" / Rondo of the Golden Calf.)

In fact, there's nothing wrong with any of the other singers, musicians, actors, dancers, or performers. They all did a pretty good job, considering their circumstances (such as being directed by Ken Russell!).

I'm directly blaming Ken Russell -- there seems to be something seriously wrong with Ken Russell. Why wouldn't you stick to the canon (tradition), Kenny-boy?!

I've written a few fan-fiction short-stories about a couple of movies and some prime-time TV shows -- and enjoyed reading several or many fanfictions written by others. In fanfiction, we have a word: "CANON"

If you deliberately disregard the canon of a given fictional or legendary story, then you must label your story as "AU" or "A.U." -- in other words, Alternate Universe. If your Alternate-Universe writing be good, then people will like it; if it sucks, then it sucks, and people will know it.

Some "AU"/Alternative-Universe fanfics are actually quite good; there's something emotionally / intellectually / morally / aesthetically satisfying about them. In other words, on several levels, they work.

DIRECTING AN OPERA IS IN SOME WAYS LIKE WRITING FANFICTION: WHAT YOU'RE DOING, AS A DIRECTOR, IS DERIVATIVE, AND IT'S YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO BE SURE THAT YOUR DIRECTION DOES NOT CAST THE OPERA IN A BAD LIGHT.

(Renata Scotto said as much in an interview that went with the Ghiaurov video disk.)

KEN RUSSELL'S ALTERNATE-UNIVERSE INTERPRETATION OF GOUNOD'S FAUST IS NEEDLESSLY MEAN AND NASTY, AND THE ENDING WITH MARGUERITE IS ESPECIALLY DISAPPOINTING. WHAT, DOES THIS GUY HATE WOMEN, OR IS HE A GRADE-SCHOOL DROP-OUT WHO HATES CLASSIC STORIES SUCH AS THE "FAUST" LEGEND?? (Maybe I should google "Ken Russell" again, but I think he probably hates women -- and if the more attractive a woman is, then the more malevolent Russell tends to be towards her; just my honest guess.)

KEN RUSSELL'S VIEW OF THE "FAUST" UNIVERSE IS AN ALTERNATE UNIVERSE THAT IS RIDDLED WITH HOPELESS -- AND I MEAN HOPELESS -- EVIL !! THERE'S NO HOPE OF ANY SORT OF REDEMPTION IN HIS VERSION OF THE STORY! WHAT GIVES?!

Russell had essentially taken an brilliant and exquisite opera and dumbed it down to a mediocre production in which Russell's own evil vision is offset only by the beauty of the performers. THE PERFORMERS (INCLUDING RAIMONDI AND THE CRAGGY-FACED SOLDIER-GUY) ALL RULE; IT'S KEN RUSSELL WHO SUCKS!

I'm inclined to watch it again for the sake of the performers (especially for the handsome Raimondi and that favorite soldier of mine) -- and NOT for the sake of Ken Russell's direction!

I suspect that the directors of the Weiner Staatsoper, when they allowed Russell to direct "Faust" for them, were presenting "Faust" in an opera house with a curse upon it: a curse named Ken Russell.

(If you don't mind my imitation "Erik" joke.)

Fortunately, the lovely performers did well to offset the ugliness of Ken Russell's curse. So, ultimately, this version of Gounod's "Faust" gets three stars instead of the more typical four or five that it would usually deserve.

Oh, and: why did Russell turn Marguerite into a nun (before eventually turning her into a headless re-animated ghoul)? Just because she was a very devoutly religious girl, or (for that matter) virginal (before Faust did her), does not mean that she was a nun. Ken Russell is just full of B.S. in equating both virginity and religious devotion with nunnery (and he was revealing his famous fetish for combining sex and nuns -- as I later on learned by googling the name "Ken Russell")! Dr. Faust might have screwed up Marguerite's life, but Ken Russell screwed up the entire story with his very poorly done Alternate-Universe interpretation of Gounod's opera. Ken Russell, please don't detract from a great opera or from wonderful performers ever again!

Three stars, instead of four or five, for very obvious reasons (read:an arrogant director named Ken Russell).

Dr. Faust might have screwed up Marguerite's life, but Ken Russell screwed up their story!

And I'd watch this opera only for the sake of the MANY GOOD PERFORMERS who were working with a bad director (the performers were doing what they could).

Thanks to Russell's bad direction, three stars!

Being a big fan of Ken Russell - the opera's director - I was a little let down it wasn't as outrageous as I had expected. The most contentious idea is Margarite as a nun. I don't think it works for obvious reasons. But what a lot of life Russell breathes into this dusty corpse. It isn't Eurotrash. It brings ballet into the action itself instead of being relegated to the final act. Indeed I was really surprised Russell didn't include the Walpurgis Night which would have given flight to all his excesses. Oh well. The singing and conducting are up to par. At this time any ordinary production of Faust would be sleep inducing. Hooray for Russell. Hope his film fans find and enjoy this DVD - they may be seduced by him into opera as I was seduced years ago into Tommy and Rock.

Ken Russell's production is atmospheric with a few ideas thrown in to give the production some spice! The singing is excellent, with Raimondi drawing the biggest applause from the audience. I enjoyed the production, even though it was (and perhaps still is) controversial.