If you are a fan of Figaro and Don Giovanni, don't watch this with an expectation of similar. In many ways it is more reminiscent of operas of an earlier era. For a start, it is set in Classical Roman times, in the reign of the Emperor Titus (quel surprise) and strikes me as being much heavier on recitative than Mozart's more famous works.
Watching it I assumed that it was fairly early in his career, but it actually came five years after Figaro, ten years after Idomeneo, and less than three months before his death.
Opera nights opines
Not considered one of Mozart's greatest operas, and although it contains some beautiful melodies the plot is rather feeble.
The first problem I had when watching it was with the 'trouser roles' which I found confusing. They are actually wearing skirt-like togas; you only really know that they're trouser roles because they're also wearing breastplates. My problem is that two of the four male characters were played by women. I wonder if originally they would have been castrati; nowadays a countertenor or high tenor would be more logical. Musically, I'm grateful for the women's voices, however, dramatically it detracts from the love scenes. And, also, I suspect that Tito's love - platonic - for Sesto would have had more impact if Sesto had been played by a man.
But perhaps I am looking for an explanation of the fact that, basically, the characters did not make sufficient of an emotional impact upon me for me to care. Whether that is a problem of this production or whether of the opera itself I can't say for sure. But just a little bit of surfing suggests the latter.
From time to time there are some superb Mozart moments, but I think there may be a bit too much of the recitative - the boring bits in-between - to make this a do not miss/desert island opera. I guess it would good to have on a highlights CD.
Even when the orchestra is playing non-recitative, I think it's rarely memorable. There are some fine moments eg some pleasant military music in Act I Scene ii, and in scene iii there is some lovely use of clarinet, reminiscent of his clarinet quintet which I love so much.
I imagine it would be worth seeing live. But I am not sure, considering all the other operas I have, and all the great and varied Mozart I have, whether life is long enough ever to watch this again.
Regarding this production, the staging almost inconsequential - some bland corporate setting. Although in Act II, Ancient Rome was hinted at by busts being littered randomly over the floor. I could not get into it emotionally. I began to understand that this opera was about Tito being a just merciful ruler. The title ought to have been a give away!
Perhaps part of my indifference is that on the whole, the cast was full of unconvincing actors. Philip Langridge was tremendous as Tito but the rest were a bit cardboard. I don't have any complaints about the singing and especially enjoyed Diana Montague as Sesto.
I wonder whether it would be more enjoyable in a more inspired staging. Very little action, far too much standing and delivering.
This was a 1991 production from Glyndebourne with the London Philharmonic under Andrew Davis.
Earlier in the day, before I watched this, I had been listening to Haydn's Creation. When this video was finished, the tune that stayed in my head was from the Creation. "The new created world..." I think, in a sense, that sums it up. It came in a period of 48 hours that also featured Un ballo in maschera, Don Carlo and Salome, and of all these works, it is the least. In my opinion, La clemenza di Tito is probably only a C-list opera.
I recorded it off the Performance Channel, so it gets shown every few months.
Comments