My Hillary Problem

I would prefer to keep my ultimate political leanings up to the guesswork of my readers, but I find I must come clean about certain of my feelings for Hillary Clinton, Presidential Candidate. I have been very impressed with Senator Clinton of New York. She has done great things for her constituents and by and large made the right calls on her votes, including the tough call on the Iraq authorization for which she is unfairly taking a lot of heat (it was the right vote at the time and one must go back to a 2002 mindframe to see that -- but that is a can of worms for another post). And Bill was nowhere in sight in the Senate -- this really was her own "thing" and she did it quite well. Her Senate career has been admirable up to her "suspension of belief" grilling of General Petreaus, which was, after all, really part of her Presidential campaign.

The Hillary running for President is a throwback to the first Clinton administration with the hostility to the press, paranoia and efforts to dominate the national dialogue with talking points (e.g., speeches vs. solutions). My problem is that when we are dealing with the Clintons as a package deal, I find I cannot take anything they say or do at face value and I am often surprised at how often even critical members of the media swallow hook, line and sinker, things that I think are calculated to create a particular message or buzz. Some did catch on to the purpose of the periodic crying. A better example is how Hillary and her campaign are allegedly upset with Bill for his behavior in South Carolina. IMHO, everything Bill said and did in SC was calculated by the campaign -- if the campaign is upset, it is only because the tactic didn't work. If she had won SC or done better on Super Tuesday, we would be hearing about what a great strategic move it was to unleash the former President. This is a throwback to the Monica scandal when the press, with one wet eye and one dry eye, reported that on a particular day, the President undertook the difficult task of telling his wife that the allegations were true -- as though she hadn't known for months already. The press will always fall for drama and a good yarn.

My other problem is the inevitability thing -- with all the talented women in politics, law, government service and American business, why is Hillary considered to be not only the best qualified but also seemingly the only qualified female presidential prospect? Because she says so? It goes along with the old meme about Bill being one of the most brilliant men alive because he could multi-task (talk policy on the phone and do a crossword puzzle at the same time, and as we found out, who knows what else). Hyperbole does not serve Hillary well. She is extremely intelligent, has spent a lifetime in the public eye and has a mostly exemplary Senate record. She is an excellent candidate. Let the facts speak for themselves rather than trying to convince us, by tiresome rote repetition, that she is Wonder Woman.

Deval Obama

Last I checked, plagiarism is stealing, and it can't be stealing if the use is authorized. As far as the "passing off as one's own" part, it is not as though Obama is claiming discovery of a new mathematical theorem, scientific breakthrough or cribbing from The Autobiography of Malcolm X in The Audacity of Hope. Nice try Howard, though I do fear there are folks in Wisconsin who may take this claim at face value. Nevertheless, if Hillary is running on "solutions," I don't see how this helps.

Don't count her out!

The Clintons are actually best when they are cornered (see the budget battle, 1996, impeachment, New Hampshire . . .). Despite the title of this article, it reveals that all the old hands are back on deck and ready for a showdown.

Mattila's Met Manon Lescaut

This week’s Met Opera radio broadcast (and theatercast) is Puccini’s Manon Lescaut with Karita Mattila and Marcello Giordani, which I saw on the first night of the run in late January. Mattila totally inhabited the title role, as far as vocal and physical commitment matching her indelible Salome. In February's Opera News she wonders how Puccini could have written "L'ora tirsi" and "Sola, perduta, abandonata" for the same singer. Maybe he imagined a singer like Mattila, because she was stunning in both. Mattila has a very different voice from Albanese, Tebaldi, Scotto or Freni, and I was wondering if reports from the San Francisco production that the role didn't work for her would prove true. She is not a typical Elisabetta de Valois voice either, but was very effective in that role too, in her own way. I was very pleasantly surprised by the results and, again, by her mastering of the very different vocal and dramatic challenges of each the four scenes. There was only one odd use of chest voice, towards the end of Act II where she is lamenting her impending loss of luxury. It sounded similar to some of the weird things Leontyne Price did in her mid-to-late career. But otherwise I still found Mattila very effective in the role, provided one didn't expect her to sound like one of the Italian ladies I mentioned above, and while that may be traditional, I don't think it is required when approached with Mattila's level of skill and commitment. In Act II it was clear that Manon and her brother were working Geronte and his crowd for all they were worth and she was clearly enjoying her effect on the men, perfectly in keeping with the character (see also Massanet's Act III). To the extent she was "over the top" it was to wink at the audience and let us know Manon knows exactly what she's doing. I should mentioned that also she did a neat split at the end of the minuet. She was devastatingly convincing in the Le Havre scene and in the final big aria and death scene. I attended with my Finnish colleague Ursula, already a big Mattila fan, who went bonkers for her.

Giordani was as good as I have heard him and got even better as the evening went on. "No, pazzo son" and Act IV indeed were stunning. As good as his Massanet Des Grieux a decade ago. There was a keen sense of line and phrasing throughout and his top remains thrilling -- there is a true tenorial ring to his voice which few other current tenors can match. It was striking just how big the tenor role is in this opera and Giordani sounded great even at evening's end. There was none of the ragged sound I noted in Lucia this fall, which I speculated was due in part to his pinch hitting in Romeo, and Butterfly as well, in a short time frame of that performance. I am looking forward to his Ernani now more than ever.

Dwayne Croft, as Lescaut, was quite good, but not as memorable as his co-stars. Young tenor Sean Panikkar was indeed very good and made the most of Edmondo's role. This is very important, since for the first ten minutes it always seems as though Edmondo is going to be the tenor lead. Dale Travis played a good heavy, giving a sense that Manon and Lescaut were really playing with fire and adding more underlying tension throughout Act II than one normally feels. But the characterization was a bit one note, a series of slow burns -- he did not seem crestfallen or hurt when Manon shoves the mirror in his face.

Levine's conducting was expert and well-paced. There was an appropriately light touch in fact in the first two acts, with more gravitas coming into play with the intermezzo which I have come to think of as one of Jimmy's signature pieces. Nobody other than the late Carlos Kleiber ever lavished so much serious attention on Puccini's scores. The orchestra playing had not only shape but innumerable moments of detail and color, especially the woodwinds in the neo-classical ditties of Act II and in the bleak spare writing of the final scene. The best example of the overall high level of the entire vocal and instrumental ensemble was the incredibly difficult, syncopated trio near the end of Act II when Lescaut urges the lovers to flee. It was note perfect yet dramatically urgent, never veering remotely close to out of control. In the big ensemble in Act III the lovers could clearly be heard over the chorus and orchestra without shouting.

The 28 year old production (!) is serviceable, Act II still quite pretty, Act IV bare even for an imaginary Louisiana desert, just two dimly lit strips of dune that would have served Wieland Wagner for Tristan Act III (I wonder if it has been stripped down to eliminate the third intermission as with the Nile Scene in the most recent Aidas -- maybe someone who has seen this in house before can fill me in).

As a teen I recorded the original radio broadcast with Scotto and Domingo which became my standard recording of this opera for years after and this performance matched that easily. Of course, Scotto and Domingo were rapturously received in their day . . . or were they? Thanks to the magic of the Met Archives database, we can get the opinion of the late Opera News editor Robert Jacobsen, no slouch when it came to opera knowledge: "In Act II, however, [Menotti] permitted Renata Scotto - now apparently entering a new era of mannerisms - to get out of hand in sheer fussiness of acting as the spoiled Manon. Her exaggerated attachment to jewelry turned much of the action into unintentional comedy in the manner of Feydeau . . . Miss Scotto supplied singing and acting of hypnotic pathos, wrenching every bit of emotion out of the long death scene. Previously, she had not been in good voice, her screamy high notes a trial, the voice sounding tired and wiry. Placido Domingo, looking slim and handsome, acting with conviction, found it hard to achieve Des Grieux's lyricism, belting out the score with often thrilling results. Since the tessitura lies high, one felt Domingo pushing his tenor to achieve these ends (after Act I he was announced as ill), but his passionate outburst to the Captain in Act III was overwhelming." Throughout the press and blogosphere, Giordani has been criticized for “belting” and “pushing” and Mattila for overdoing it in Act II. The more things change . . . . Folks, let’s appreciate the good things we have while we have them. Enjoy Saturday’s broadcast!

I Guess We're Not All Fans

I missed this when it ran Sunday, but it is worth a late link. Must have been Callas . . .

http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20080210

Obama is Winning?

I have been looking for an Obama site to counterbalance the link to Hillaryis44.com. I think I may have found it here:

http://www.obamaiswinning.com/

Food for Thought

Debra Burlingame, does, understandably, have a particular point of view which is 180 degrees from that of the "Jersey Girls," both viewpoints having been indelibly shaped by 9/11. But this article addresses a late Clinton administration issue that has not received sufficient serious attention (as opposed to the Marc Rich pardon or the alleged removal of "W" keys from White House typewriters). The FALN pardons may have had a direct relationship with Hillary's run for the Senate and therefore by extension her current run for the White House. I have never heard or read a convincing refutation of Burlingame's version of things from Hillary's camp -- not spin, but hard evidence that these particular individuals were worthy of release and not hard core terrorists. At least one kid was killed at Fraunces Tavern so the victims were not all public servants and moguls. She does make one error -- "Bojinka" was the plot to simultaneously explode several airplanes over the pacific, not a plot to crash airplanes into buildings. This error makes me want to see either support or refutation of her other claims. But on its face, at least, her article does give one pause.

http://online.wsj.com/public/page/opinion.html?refresh=on