Since Saturday, and for four more performances, the Opéra de Montréal returns to one of the public’s favorite works, Madame Butterfly. The success is there, and the many spectators will be happy.
There are several differences between opera and cinema, and for this Madame Butterfly, one of them takes on such absurd dimensions that we will begin with this point. At the cinema, at the end of the film, the credits do not fail to reveal to us the identity of the person who brought the sandwiches to the star. But nothing like the opera…
Saturday we left Madame Butterfly saying to us: “Magnificent lighting, what faultless, what a refined sense of the poetics of colors, what a beautiful advantage taken from transparencies. And, there, we wanted to take our hat off to Mr. Untel or Mrs. Untelle. But the name does not appear on the summary press release presenting Tact Conseil, the institution’s new public relations officer. We look for it in vain in the flyer for the evening, as on the Opera website. In fact, Anne-Catherine Simard-Deraspe and Nicholas Chimienti (screenings) are hiding behind a QR code distributed at the entrance. Honor therefore be given to them. And in priority.
Speaking of “flawless,” let’s go directly to Pedro Halffter, who practically managed to make Wilfrid-Pelletier sound an opera. What the Spanish leader is doing is constantly relaunching the discourse. If he gave way to procrastination, everything would collapse in this thankless room. He therefore does not hesitate to make the orchestra play a little “above” (in tempo, in dynamics), to obtain this presence, and, by extension, a continuous tension. Wow, that’s flawless.
Assume the past
The Opéra de Montréal has concocted a flexible show with wood and translucent screens. It’s effective, not too heavy. Thus dressed in lights and projections, the show fulfills its mission. If the idea of a Butterfly is to fill the coffers to afford otherwise more adventurous programming, you might as well fill them full, but do it artistically well, which it is. But we must all the same note that we are in the register of the type “show of the University of Montreal transposed to the higher scale” with additional projections and neat costumes. It will be recalled that the production by Opera Australia seen here in 2008 had pools of water with floating candles which created reflections. This is perhaps also the role of a subsidized house.
The idea of Stephanie Havey’s show is to have Kate Pinkerton and her older son watch part of the story, this son taken from Butterfly, who, in the end, comes to terms with his past. A problem not solved by what is either an interesting idea or a clever subterfuge to potentially oppose to the decolonizers who now attack the presentations of this type of orientalizing opera, is whether, as the son sees that his father is a cynical scum, he will reject him or endorse the model to reproduce it. As such, the idea of making the child miss the scene where Pinkerton realizes in Act III the extent of the ravages of his cynical colonialist selfishness becomes particularly incomprehensible.
On the set, the main roles do things well. Matthew White is a clear tenor, a little tight but very sure; Lauren Segal a warm Suzuki; Éric Thériault an excellent Goro. Hugo Laporte approached Sharpless well for his role. It is hoped that he will perform in France in smaller theaters, which will suit him better. As for Matthew Treviño, his voice peaks in Bonze, while Geoffrey Schellenberg does the right thing in Yamadori.
Joyce El-Khoury’s Cio-Cio San? She has the role in her voice, it’s not a shocking revelation, but there is an alternation of great passages (high notes spun by pianissimos) and slightly strange things, like a few strong “screams” or the death scene, in which the voice levels off when it should be released. But, overall, it was a good performance and a good show, well below that of 2008 (Omura, Troxell, Popescu, Westman, Nezet-Séguin), all the same.