I agree that some of the interviews were less than inspiring, but there are many other alumni of the company that might have made better interviewees had they been invited to do so. I do think Ms Cash is more interested in how people look than in what they have to say, however. Let’s remember that the early dancers are all in their 70′s now and, unlike the Ballets Russes survivors (of whom I am also one, and yes, I was in that film), for the most part, we worked long and hard for most of our lives, without the luxury of wealth to help us look glamorous. In fact, doesn’t that add to the “little engine that could” narrative? I also object to the cruelty of the description of Gerry Arpino looking like Jooss’s Death. Was that necessary?

The big difference between the two films is that Ballets Russes was the story of a reunion of the dancers, a grand and glorious party in New Orleans, not a history of the company, while the Joffrey film attempted the near-impossible task of compressing 50 years into 1 & 1/2 hours. Oh, and, by the way, I thought Françoise Martinet looked as glamorous and spoke as movingly as anyone else in the film.

This sounds like a more perfect role for her though. I think of Another Earth and probably this film as part of a trend in lower-tech, character driven sci-fi, e.g., Duncan Jones’ Moon and SourceCode. It’s a nod to some of the best early television sci-fi like the Twilight Zone. The film sounds very intriguing. I like that you’ve identified some traits between her two films that suggest the development of a unique style. It’ll be fun watching her career develop.

For Arts Fuse readers, some of the livelier and more revealing stories of those early Joffrey years are included in Marie’s memoir, Ballet to the Corps (2008); in full disclosure, I made some suggestions on a very early draft. It’s available from Amazon.

http://www.the-impossible-project.com/

The opera itself is a dark subject, and it takes a lot out of you to watch. I would like to address how impressed I was at the talent of the singers, as well as the power and emotion they brought to the performance. To agree with what Dr. Bunbury wrote, I thought the minor roles and chorus performed tremendously well, especially considering their youth. I had heard many of my classmates talking about their countless rehearsals and practicing, and I think it’s easy to say their hard work showed.

I was particularly moved by the death of Mother Superior. I had seen this scene performed many times but found this performance outstanding. I would have to argue with Dr. Bunbury that I thought the finale was fantastic; it almost brought me to tears. I felt terrified, as if I were walking up to the guillotine with the sisters. The silence left afterwards is truly an experience I will never forget. I believe this may be because this was my first staged viewing of the opera, and I am looking at it with fresh eyes. Regardless, the focus and emotion to perform the final scene is intense, and everybody should be praised for it.

Looking at the audience’s reaction, I do believe that this particular opera is hard to grasp in your college years. I was surprised to see some of my peers that appeared completely unmoved by the final scene. This may be because the opera is based around religion and The French Revolution, two topics you don’t hear in a general setting. It may also be because this opera is very difficult to relate to in this day and age.

Although this is not a musical comment, I particularly enjoyed the simple staging. It was not overbearing, which I have seen happen on multiple occasions. There were very few things I felt hindered the performance. One important factor was the balance between the orchestra and the singers. Some moments I was unable to understand the dialogue and it became confusing. I was always fascinated by Poulenc’s use of color in this opera, and felt that while some moments delivered (such as the ending of Act 1), others were lacking. This may be because of a few intonation issues or the orchestration used.

Overall this was an outstanding performance, and those involved deserve recognition of their dedication and hard work.

Thus, I find Chagall’s religious paintings more moving than those of most Christian artists. And I find Caravaggio’s paintings of religious subject matter immensely moving even though one suspects the painter to have been motivated more by the need for money than by religion. All of this is to say that though I’m comfortable being a nonbeliever who deeply appreciates various kinds of religious art, I agree with the idea that these iconic works of art are altogether different. They certainly interest me, and I admire them, but they don’t move me. And I think that may be because they have that built-in barrier–”not made by hands.” They’re deliberately intimidating. They’re not out to convert me or even to speak to me if I don’t bring to them the “faith” out of which they originated. Forgive me if this seems a pig-headed response to a brilliant, illuminating, and entirely down-to-earth essay.

I saw the same cast twice, and I did so on purpose. The performers on Thursday evening were so powerful and sang so beautifully that they made me need to hear them sing again. I was especially captivated by the vocals of John Irvin and Celeste Fraser, but the entire cast impressed me with their ability to move an audience with their voices. The performance on Thursday evening was, overall, much stronger than it was on Saturday evening, but both left me completely satisfied.

The orchestra, I’m sorry to say, was quite out of tune for a great deal of the opera, but I was only distracted by this a couple of times, because I was so focused on what was happening onstage. The set looked beautiful, the staging was great, and the performers were captivating.

I found the ending of the opera to be extremely effective, even if one or two of the nuns overdid it a bit. The sound of the guillotine gave me chills, and those chills stayed until the curtain fell.

A huge congratulations to everyone who was involved in this production–it was an incredibly enjoyable and moving experience to have been able to see it.

Not only was I impressed by the performers, but the stage setting and costume work was also very well thought out, adding another dimension to the performance. In particular, I found the set of the cathedral to be especially impressive. The Boston University Theater is not an impressively large space, yet the simple backdrop of the pillars, that seemed to be actually made of stone, and the flooring details managed to somehow make me feel as if I had stepped into a grand cathedral. The extra feature of the candles added a sense of sacred meditation to the scene and seemed to make the cathedral even more believable.

The talent of all the vocalists was apparent throughout the entire work, and I was particularly enraptured by the thrilling capabilities of mezzo Lauren Lyles who played Mother Marie. Her voice was a solid force and carried itself into the audience with ease. In addition to the vocal talents of the cast, the acting was also exquisite. The scene with the death of Mother Superior was, as Hilary Poriss says in her review, a “terrified and terrifying passage,” which left me frozen on the edge of my seat.

Although Maestro Lumpkin’s expressive musicality was exquisitely well thought out and clearly well-rehearsed, I was not consistently impressed by the pit orchestra. There were many beautiful moments, yet I was occasionally distracted by intonation issues. I know Poulenc tends to write with much dissonance, but I don’t think all of the dissonance I heard was intentional.

Despite that one minor distraction, I have never enjoyed an opera as much as this one, and I applaud the cast and crew for their impressive work. I look forward to seeing more productions in the future.

I absolutely loved watching and hearing the vocalists! They did a great job getting deeply involved in their roles and creating an emotional performance that could really strike the hearts of the audience members. The orchestra on the other hand had a few choice spots lacking the luster that the vocalists were putting out. Minor intonation issues and missed entrances took a bit away from the overall performance of the opera, however the the piece still made the emotional impact that it was intended to make on the audience.

Overall, the performance was very well done. Members of the orchestra and of the vocalists deserve much recognition for the time they spent in preparation of this performance.

However, I feel that my entirely aurally based experience of the opera gave me a very interesting perspective to discuss. I was incredibly impressed with the singers in both the quality of their singing and in their ability to express the mood of the character aurally. Also, I felt that Maestro Lumpkin did a magnificent job of holding the singers and the orchestra together. Like Jeff mentioned, I was disappointed to hear that Dr. Bunbury found the last act lackluster because it was indeed very moving from my seat in the pit. It is unfortunate that members of the audience did not get to experience the same intensity of emotion as the performers.

I was very interested to read Dr. Bunbury’s thoughts about martyrdom and our perception of it following 9/11. I must confess that thoughts of 9/11 never entered my head when thinking about this opera. Rather, I thought that it might be the small number of the nuns which made the audience less absorbed. When researching the French revolution to give myself some background information before playing in the opera, I found myself thinking that not that many people (about 50,000) really died during the revolution. I was immediately horrified by my own callous reaction, but the fact remains that we as a society are more used to counting casualties of war in the millions. Therefore, the deaths of a few nuns (who quite possibly could have saved themselves) does not have the same emotional pull to a society which is used to thinking in terms of body counts, rather than the individual lives lost.

I feel incredibly honored to have been in this production, which was made successful by the hard work on the part of everyone involved. It is very gratifying to read reviews and find that our work conveyed the opera convincingly enough to generate this much interest.

The point brought by Dr. Bunbury about the audience reception is an interesting one. I personally did not feel this way at all and found the messages of the opera to be incredibly profound and meaningful. I do agree that the audience was less than enthusiastic. Now Dr. Bunbury attended the concert on Saturday so there is possibly a trend related to the post-9/11 mind. That being said, I do not believe that the message of the opera was “die for religion,” so any reaction to that seems irrelevant. Jeff Strome brings up a great point about the massive sales of the film The Passion of the Christ. Ideally those who attended the opera were able to distance themselves for the secularized society in which we live in, and understand the message Poulenc was trying to convey.

It is only fair to note the smaller orchestra, with its subsequent re-orchestration will not be as effective as a larger orchestra. Yet even with the reduced orchestra size, I thought the opera was truly wonderful and deeply moving. A huge congratulations to the BU orchestra musicians and singers, as well as to those who helped with its successful production!

In Dr. Bunbury’s review he said that he found the final scene disappointing, perhaps due to the re-orchestration. Having no previous exposure to this opera, I find it surprising that it could be any more moving, especially with such a small orchestra. I was almost moved to tears every time I played that final scene. Another thing I’d like to say is that during every performance, the orchestra was constantly struggling with playing quiet enough so that the singers could be heard during the final scene, this may have detracted from the effect in the audience, but in the pit it was still incredible.

Another point brought up by Dr. Bunbury was about audience reception of the opera. Even though I’m a musician, I am by no means an opera enthusiast, nor do I know much about opera. I’m a violist. But the first time Maestro Lumpkin led the orchestra through it and told us what it was about, I immediately understood and felt a connection to the story, not just the music. I looked it up, I read about it, I got into it. All of my family and friends that came did the same thing, they were all very intrigued by the entire idea. I don’t think that a post-9/11 consciousness should affect anyone’s opinions on this opera and if it does then I’m completely shocked by that. Since The Passion of the Christ came out in 2004, it’s grossed over $600 million becoming one of the top grossing movies of all time and when you think about it, that’s just another story of religious martyrdom.

I’m extremely pleased with my personal performance, and the entire cast/orchestra’s performance in this opera and I believe we did a great job communicating the pure emotion of the music to the audience. In closing, I’d like to echo Patrick Raleigh’s thoughts that this opera caries universal truths that are still relevant in the present day, and I hope that everyone has the chance to experience this incredible work in the same way I did.