The Next Move is Yours: Tragedy Defines Strategy in ‘The Queen’s Gambit’ (Part Three) — The End is Only the Beginning

Chess master Borgov congratulates Beth Harmon in ‘The Queen’s Gambit

Flashbacks and Fast Forwards

Narrow hallways, skewed perspectives. The camera stares straight ahead and into its subject’s eyes. It tries to peer inside Beth Harmon’s mind, to see what makes her tick, to learn what drives her to do the crazy things she does. It also follows behind her, in her frequent trips to the local drugstore. Acting, for all the world, as if it was a suspicious police detective, the camera retraces her steps but from the front angle.

Beth purchases a newspaper with the change from the cigarettes her stepmother asked her to get. Realizing she’s a few cents short, Beth steals a chess magazine, doing to the newspaper what she did earlier to the doll she received as a gift: she dumps it into the nearest wastebasket. Which, as in the previous episode, tells viewers all we need to know about how Beth feels towards objects that remind her of her past.

Nothing is more important to her than chess.

Prior and subsequent to this sequence, the druggist eyes her suspiciously — with good reason. Beth brazenly walks out of the drugstore with the purloined chess magazine. She returns the next day to get a prescription filled for Alma’s nerves (poor thing). When the druggist gives her the prescription, Beth is intrigued to learn it’s for those little green pills she once yearned for at the orphanage. The things that gave her those nighttime hallucinations. Tranquilizers, heaven sent.

Returning home with the medication, Beth hands Alma the bottle, but it’s only half full. Alma wonders why the prescription was only partially filled, but Beth turns sheepishly away from confrontation. Some things are better left unspoken. Leafing through the stolen magazine, we see flashes of chess masters Valery Borgov and Benny Watts, shown briefly in subliminal sparks that remind us of situations to come.

Beth relives her earlier triumphs with players who, albeit far below her level of excellence, at least offered her somewhat of a challenge. It’s here, at a Lexington, Kentucky high school, that she meets Townes, a journalist and fellow chess buff. It’s also where Beth experiences her first agonizingly vivid period. Her ignorance of basic bodily functions (similar, in some ways, but not nearly as traumatic as that experienced by the clueless Carrie) drives Beth straight to the girls’ bathroom. Ironically, the first girl she beat at chess, Annette Packer, comes to her rescue with a tampon — but Beth has no idea how to use it. So smart, yet so dumb.

The flavorful music score by Carlos Rafael Rivera (A Walk Among the Tombstones, Godless), an elegant recurring piano arpeggio with an orchestral obbligato, provides both background commentary and mood. A perfect “score” for a Netflix series about chess.

Young Beth has a permanent blank stare on her expressionless face. She feels nothing, shows no emotion. She is dead, inside and outside. People talk about the deceased, about being in better places. There’s no better place to be, however, than inside your own head. For that matter, Beth’s head. And nothing can be worse than being brought up, alone and discarded, in an orphanage.

Beth’s only refuge is in tranquilizers and, later, in alcoholic beverages, booze for short, with hints of other addictions to come. The pills do their job, only too well in fact. For instance, Beth’s first night at the orphanage is uneventful: the wind blows the trees outside the dormitory, their shadows reflected in the ceiling overhead. Soon, the trees will be replaced by a chessboard, with massive chess pieces moving in all directions. They will be guided by Bess’s thoughts and fueled, so she thinks, by the tranquilizers.

Young Beth Harmon (Isla Johnson) stares at the chess pieces in the dormitory’s ceiling

Fitful memories of her mother Alice’s past emerge, along with Beth’s runaway father and her mother’s discarded PhD dissertation — mementoes of a lost mind and a broken body.

Beth watches the custodian, Mr. Shaibel, move funny pieces on a board in the basement. Odd, that. Why does Beth see these same pieces on the ceiling? At night, in bed, and while she’s trying to sleep? Where did they come from? What do they mean? Did the little green pills she takes at bedtime, her “vitamins,” do all that?

The chess pieces begin to take their proper place on the imaginary board. Each in their designated area. Deftly and securely, Beth moves the pieces with her eyes, then her hand, her thoughts, her power over them growing. She’s hypnotized by them. But does she really control them, or do they control her?

Beth’s path appears before her. Mr. Shaibel, the custodian, is the first of her mentors, the one who instructs her on the fundamentals of the game. There will be others, of course, some good, some poor. Beyond that, Beth is basically on her own. Her own best adviser, her own best friend. And her own worst enemy.

She plays, over and over and over again. She can think of nothing else. Reading and learning from chess books, most given to her by well-meaning friends and associates. People she barely knew, people she had little interest in. The moves: the Sicilian Defense, and the Queen’s Gambit. Where the queen is sacrificed for a higher cause. Her life and everyone’s lives, such as they are, have been sacrificed as well. To chess.

Pulling a Bobby Fischer-style performance, Beth wins her first challenge by beating all the boys at a high school chess club’s “simultaneous” match. An hour and 45 minutes’ worth of her time.  

Winning was never so easy. Life was never so hard.

Who Needs Frenemies?

Benny Watts is the only character who does not fall under Beth’s spell. He is his own man so to speak, one who guards his personal feelings about her as much as a Buddhist monk would protect his star pupils’ secrets, or a priest their sins. Benny, too, is his own master. And he keeps his own counsel — a wise policy.

Benny (Thomas Brodie-Sangster) instructs Beth on the finer points of chess

Fittingly, Beth is thrown off balance by Benny’s seeming nonchalance, his ability to lower her defenses with little to no effort. Does Beth allow him to do this to her on purpose? Because she “likes” him? Because she wants Benny to notice her? Still, Benny remains aloof, an enigmatic figure, a grandmaster of the game of life, one practically born to it. Benny comes and goes, even showing up at inopportune times, mercurial in his manner and ways.

Surviving by his wits and on little monetary means, Benny is Beth’s constant tempter and tormentor — the slimy serpent to her pliant Eve, a fellow chess lover and all-around champion whose life revolves around the game. When Benny invites her to his apartment in New York City, Beth half expects it to be a posh Park Avenue loft, or at the least a lavish bachelor pad in keeping with Benny’s reputation. While we feel her surprise and disappointment at his sub-basement dwelling (with Toronto standing in for midtown Manhattan), a veritable air-raid shelter bereft of the barest amenities (he takes the term “Spartan lifestyle” to new heights), she’s nevertheless drawn to him — and he to her — as they sleep together, probably for the first and only time.

With that bold move, Beth experiences her first orgasm with Benny, not necessarily the “climax” of their pseudo courtship. He stupidly destroys the moment, though, with pointed criticisms about her chess moves. A conversation killer to say the least. Oh, well, nothing ventured, nothing gained. In that Parisian hotel room later on, Beth meets up with ex-model Cleo, a resourceful French girl who once had a brief fling with Benny but (in a very modernesque move) shares our chess champion’s bed. As usual, Beth has one too many cocktails at the hotel’s bar, the reason for her hangover and late appearance in her rematch with Borgov.

Nevertheless, the playing field has been leveled as both combatants, Beth and Benny, maintain a mutual regard for one another’s skills (and private space), both on the chess route and in the boudoir. Think of them as Jadzia and Worf of Deep Space 9, or Trip and T’Pol of Star Trek Enterprise: a love-hate, combative relationship built on professional courtesy if nothing else. “Frenemies” would be the term of art that’s called to mind, for better and (sometimes) for worse.

Still, Beth finds comfort in a man’s world. She has never experienced that same level of comfort or challenge in the world of women. We see this at the Methuen School, at Fairview High School, and especially at an all-girl’s party where her classmates are all dressed in like manner. You know the routine: hoop skirts, bobby socks and saddle shoes. Beth’s classy outfits, straight out of a fashion spread, clash with their girlie attire. And during the singing of the pop group, the Vogues’ “You’re the One,” a favorite tune of the era, Beth steals a bottle of gin from the premises and flees the party. “Chess isn’t the only thing in life.” That is for sure. Add kleptomania to her many faults.

The camera follows Beth from behind. We, the viewer, are tracing her footsteps, her rite of passage, her slipping into adulthood — hmm, not always a good thing. We experience what Beth experiences. We thrill to her victories; we wallow in her defeats. Her pain, our gain.

We commiserate with her failings. We see what she sees, and we absorb what she absorbs: the ambience, the particulars, the décor, the scenery — they are all of a piece, a total conception that draws the viewer into her world, a world of competition. Win or lose, up or down. The pieces are there, and so are the competitors.

Early on Beth loses her queen — or her mother and/or stepmother, metaphorically speaking. She spends the rest of the series in trying to regain her lost queen (that is, her very self and her self-respect). If you haven’t as yet picked up on the series’ “thread,” all the “queens” in the drama are to be sacrificed. In other words, Beth’s quest for rising to an unrivaled position over and above every other player, usually of the male variety, will demand some form of sacrifice. She finally becomes that which she had lost.

In the end, Beth is surrounded by dozens of old Russian men, all obsessed with the game of chess, her own private army of Shaibels (William Shaibel, the janitor who taught her the game) who Beth finally pays belated tribute to as the man who started her down the path of a chess master.

Now a grandmaster herself, a champion. The queen of her realm. She discovers the true love of her life. Chess. She is the black and white queen. The lone survivor and the one left standing.

Make way for her majesty! Long live … the Queen!

Beth Harmon (Anya Taylor-Joy) as the white queen in ‘The Queen’s Gambit’

Creating the Queen: What to ‘Make Of’ the Series

The cost of genius is high. We know this from Beth’s upbringing and life experiences. But it’s more about escape: escape from her demons, escape from reality, and escape from her troubled character. Much like Benny, she is her own worst enemy, per writer-director Scott Frank: a self-destructive individual despite her brilliance at chess. It’s what makes Beth the heart of the drama.

The 1950s, accurately recreated and depicted in the Netflix series, revolves primarily around chess and, more broadly, around any male-dominated discipline. Here, the depiction is of chess developing into that of an “all-boys club” from that era, to coin a phrase, and the “no girls allowed” mentality that prevailed. Who is Beth Harmon to come along and invade this fortress? This all-male preserve, such as it was, of macho dominance?

Equality of the sexes and the subsequent 1960s Women’s Liberation Movement, then, are hidden aspects that the series gets right, with Beth’s search for a place in this new frontier part of a broader schematic.

That schematic, according to Frank, was first put forth by the Kennedy Administration and their coining of the “New Frontier” slogan. On the opposite end, Beth’s homelife and prior relationships with her natural mother left her extremely unstable. So much so that she had no idea what was in store for her or where she would end up. Neither did viewers.

For instance, Annette Packer (Eloise Webb), the first opponent that Beth beats at chess, sees her again after Beth has had a particularly “bad bender” (in other words, she went on a booze binge). Beth is a veritable walking wreck. Her eyes are heavily made up with bold eyeliner. She looks like a vulture, a rapacious, angry bird not certain if she’s going to pounce on her prey, pull back or fly away from the conflict. She could claw at Annette’s face at any moment, she’s that unpredictable.

Beth in wide-eyed makeup in Netflix’s ‘The Queen’s Gambit’

What does Beth do? Does she strike? Does she go to pieces? Does she back off from her attack? Just then, she runs into Harry Beltik, the last person she wants to see. There are people, such as Annette and the twins, who care about her, but she pushes them away, partially out of instinct and partially out of shame for what Beth has brought upon herself. How low she has descended in her climb to the top — or is to the bottom?

Even her old foe Beltik worries about her. Despite his concerns, Beth cares not a whit for his feelings toward her. She remains defiant, a personality quirk that needs to be addressed and worked on. In point of fact, she’s beyond caring. She’s addicted to winning or losing, take your pick. Addiction, for Beth, comes in many forms: addicted to success, to nice clothes, to a jet-set lifestyle, to swanky hotels, to bars, to restaurants. Also, to alcohol and debauchery. You win some, you lose some.

Her stepmother, Alma Wheatley (Marielle Heller, in a bravura performance), is one of the few people around who can get to her, who understands her motives, who loves her, and who sees Beth better than Beth sees herself. Alma, which means “soul,” recognizes the potential that resides within her stepdaughter. She should know. Alma was once a promising concert pianist who lacked the confidence to perform before a live audience. Stage fright, as Alma termed it. She is also a neurotic and, like Beth, is addicted to alcohol and sleeping pills. Poor Alma!

Beth tries to comfort Alma Wheatley (Marielle Heller) in a Mexico City hotel

“Creativity and psychosis go hand in hand,” so claimed the chain-smoking LIFE reporter who interviews Beth. But is Beth Harmon crazy? Is she insane? Her mind works so fast, faster than a normal person’s, whatever normal is. She sees a lot of herself in Benny Watts — his swagger, his boastfulness, his incessant chattering about himself, although Benny is unlike her in his slovenly habits and motivations. They try to get into each other’s head with mind games. And they keep at it, the one daring the other to top their last move.

What about her old buddy Jolene? Ah, Jolene! That’s what good friends are for! She happens upon Beth after a particularly bad night of boozing it up. We smile to ourselves at the outcome, though. Jolene’s generosity, her empathy toward her sister orphan in arms are what lift the story to its satisfying conclusion. And not just Jolene, but Townes, too. In Moscow our heroine reconciles with the unflappable chess journalist, who opens up to Beth about his own personal proclivities. Others chime in as well, including the genii-like Benny and the over-protective Harry.

Chess itself is explored, but only to the extent that director Frank wants the focus to be on the protagonist Beth, to get inside her, to see what she sees, and to feel what she feels. But can she overcome the challenges? Can she leap over the hurdles that life has placed before her? Especially her handicap as a woman, where men see her as a pushover? An easy mark? A quick conquest?

Oddly enough, being a woman is not only her greatest handicap, but it’s also her greatest strength. People underestimate her abilities because she’s a woman in a man’s game. Reaction shots are key, the drama playing out on people’s faces, both Beth’s and her challengers.  

As Beth gets older, her hairstyles change in conformance to the styles and eras in question. So do her eyes: they get larger and sexier, i.e., more makeup and eyeliner (as noted above). “Beth has a thing for flare,” Anya Taylor-Joy remarked. “She likes the finer things in life — like clothes.” From drab, dull and lifeless to glamorous fashion icon, courtesy of costume designer Gabriele Binder.

Beth is the white queen — long white coat, white hat with poofy pompom on top; tall, lithe and wonderfully charming. She suffers from an “emotional and intellectual” loneliness. Few people, men or women, can come up to her level, to her unbelievably high standards. And because of this, Beth is lonely, unfulfilled, ever searching, never finding satisfaction.

Her story is complex, but nevertheless fulfilling. She’s a winner on all counts.

Check and mate!

(End of Part Three)

Copyright © 2022 by Josmar F. Lopes

‘They’re BACK!!!’ — More’s the Merrier with the Met Opera Company

Nicolas Joel’s Met Opera production of ‘Fidelio’ (Photo: Metropolitan Opera)

Into the Operatic Breach, My Friends!

Time heals all wounds. Is that a fact? Well, it’s about time! Ah, but there’s good news and bad news. The Metropolitan Opera opened its doors again to the paying public. The same holds true for Broadway and most regional theaters. Let’s not forget those shuttered movie houses, or any number of select venues, which is to say, concert halls and other gatherings. Yes, audiences are starved for some out-of-home entertainment. But the main issue remains: When will things get back to normal?

In our last piece concerning this subject, we were looking forward to the Met’s reopening. This, despite the ever-present threat of the continuing coronavirus outbreak. And now, there’s the Omicron variant to deal with and suffer through. Meanwhile, Broadway musicals have been playing to less than full houses, leading to “temporary cancellations.”

Oh, hell, what else lies beyond the horizon? Too many big, bad wolves in fancy sheep’s clothing, that’s what! And please don’t get me started on the politics! Argh, it all makes one want to throw up our arms in disgust and defeat.

But we can’t be defeated. We must not let those darker angels prevail. If we do, then we’ll be no better than the viruses that threaten us. We must attempt to outlast the virus, not the other way around. And, yes, this can be done. With patience, fortitude, guts, and willingness to stay the course. That’s a lot to ask for, we know, but they remain paramount. Adversity can make one stronger.

Not working out for you? Well, then, change the course, if need be. Trick those nasty viruses into submission. How? By protecting yourself, and those you hold most dear. Be role models to and for them, but also be humane.

Isn’t that what opera teaches us? To see how others have lived their lives, for better or for worse? How the characters in opera make do with their own adversities? Why, even the most tragic of circumstances can lead to an enlightenment of sorts, or at the least to a better understanding of what makes us tick.

That is what this writer has tried to do with every online post: to understand what others have gone through; to see, to observe, to learn from a situation and do better. Always better. Yes, moving forward, and sometimes backward, this is true. But under the guise of wanting to become a better person, and a more trusting, more compassionate human being.

Opera can point the way — at least, for me it can. You need only to let opera into your soul and it will show you the door, as Morpheus from The Matrix might say. But WE are the ones who must open the door and walk through.

With the above observations in mind, let’s try to reopen the door and walk through our reviews of the remaining Met Opera on Demand online streaming series from the company’s past. There are a number of reasons for doing so. For instance, what can one come away with from watching opera in this unique manner? What new insights, or old assumptions, have come to our attention because of it? And how have these old warhorses captured the times in which we live? Specifically, to what degree has opera stayed relevant?

These have been my ongoing concerns, the kinds that are fundamental to our knowledge of the art form. So, let’s get to it:     

Fidelio (2000)

Portrait of Romantic-era German composer Ludwig van Beethoven

Revolution! Tyranny! Heroes! Villains! Feats of daring do! Young lovers in flight! Sacrifices and armed conflicts! People in disguise! Betrayal! Revenge! And a last-minute rescue! WOW! These are what made the subgenre of “rescue opera” so enticing. As far back as Mozart and Schikaneder’s The Magic Flute (or in German, Die Zauberflöte) and perhaps earlier, audiences have been thrilled by the escapades of fired-up characters involved in dire situations greater than themselves.

The so-called rescue opera had been a popular feature of regional houses throughout the late-eighteenth and into the early-nineteenth centuries. Their reputation came about from the turbulent times that European artists and musicians, indeed practically everyone who lived through them, had to deal with and suffer through. The rumblings of the French Revolution, for one, followed the ideals of the philosophical and intellectual challenges brought forth by the Enlightenment and Freemasonry.

What is the Enlightenment, anyway? Glad you asked! It was a movement that, among many things, insisted upon reason and benevolence as guiding and affecting both the individual and society as a whole, ones that (hopefully) would lead toward a universal set of principles that govern our behavior and politics. Men must live by reason and thought, which extends to the natural world and the sciences. Individual rights were to be respected, from those in the top echelons of society all the way down to the bottom, i.e., the uneducated rabble. The Freemasons were among those individuals who considered it their moral duty to bring about change to an unequal society.

Lofty ideals, indeed. The kinds that furthered multiple causes not only related to the American Revolution against British rule but those that brought forth the downfall of the French monarchy — mostly by violent means.   

Among the Enlightenment’s many adherents was German composer and musician Ludwig van Beethoven, whose lone opera Fidelio, a perfect illustration of the era’s trend toward rescue opera, became the very model of its kind. Before Beethoven, copycat productions of similarly themed works blatantly purloined or plagiarized stories, characters, situations and ideas from one another. Hah, share and share alike taken to the extreme. That adherence to copyright barely existed at all at the time was obvious. Only later, from the mid- to late-nineteenth century on did protection from infringement of one’s rights to original material start to become the law of many lands.

The above-mentioned Magic Flute, then, is a classic instance of a composite work fashioned from pre-existing sources. Even the names and quirks of certain of its protagonists — the flighty “bird” couple Papageno and Papagena, for example — were “appropriated” from a mixture of popular plays and fantastic fairy tales involving magical adventures, most of which featured spoken dialogue (the Singspiel), exotic tableaux, spectacular scene-changes, and various and sundry allusions to real-life personalities of the time.

Enter Beethoven, who had been looking for a worthy stage subject for years. Before and during the time of Fidelio’s composition and its subsequent revisions (1803 to 1814), the composer’s interest in opera grew. And why not? Mozart’s premature passing left a gaping hole in the German-language repertoire. Why let the prolific Italians and French have all the fun?

Finnish soprano Karita Mattila in disguise as ‘Fidelio’

As a matter of fact, the general state of rescue operas in Vienna, where Herr Beethoven had situated himself, concentrated themselves on providing audiences with a somewhat grandiose style of intensely dramatic entertainment: situations culminating in a precipitous rise in tension, pulse-pounding and suspenseful confrontations, and a heightened emotional awareness and involvement that personified the now-historical effects of the French Revolution.   

One of the reasons that Fidelio, originally titled Leonore after its heroine, failed to catch fire with Beethoven’s imagination and with period audiences was due to its length: three acts instead of two. A stodgy and ill-served libretto by one Joseph Ferdinand Sonnleithner (and you thought Schikaneder was hard to pronounce!) did little to ease matters; and the fact that the story had already appeared in stage form (vide prior entries by composers Pierre Gaveaux, Ferdinando Paer, and Giovanni Simone Mayr) gave Beethoven’s latest effort the semblance of “been there, seen that, what else you got?” An unfair assessment, granted, but a valid one, nonetheless.

Another reason was Ludwig’s predilection for slow and steady crafting, and his endless tinkering and reshaping of his scores. That he labored incessantly over his one and only operatic work is well supported by the facts. The final result, while not embodying that elusive perfectionism that was his wont, is at its core a masterwork of unrivaled power and humanity. Beethoven’s belief in this piece was vindicated, thanks to the drastic surgery it experienced, first in 1805 by one Stephan von Breuning, and in 1814, with further doctoring by librettist Friedrich Treitschke.

From the three-act Leonore to a two-act opera, now labeled Fidelio. Things start off gradually and deliberately, as if from another realm entirely, but one that builds on itself, layer upon layer, to an emotional outburst, leading up to that magnificently climactic final chorus wherein the major characters participate in a communal celebration of brotherhood, courage, and conjugal love.

Oh, about that plot: the lapses in judgment and the accidental “coincidences” that bring the heroic protagonist Leonore and her imprisoned husband Florestan together, surely stress the gullibility of the most susceptible of audiences. You have to swallow hard if you are to come out of this ordeal with a straight face. But it’s all worthwhile.

Karita Mattila as Fidelio/Leonore and Ben Heppner as Florestan

Yet, there’s something exhilarating about this score. Call it a shot in the arm, an injection of truth serum into one’s bloodstream. The end result: One cannot avoid being moved by Beethoven’s music or by the situations inherent in this piece. Simply stated, the Spanish noblewoman Leonore (Finnish soprano Karita Mattila) has been separated from her husband, Florestan (Canadian tenor Ben Heppner). She learns that he has been jailed for political reasons, for crimes he did not commit. Searching high and low, Leonore surmises that Florestan may be held in a terrible place run by Don Pizarro (bass-baritone Falk Struckmann), the evil governor of the prison and her husband’s sworn enemy.

Assuming the guise of a young man called Fidelio (that is, “the devoted one”), Leonore befriends the kindly old jailer Rocco (bass-baritone René Pape) in the hope that he might lead her to her husband’s whereabouts. Complications ensue, however, when Rocco’s teenaged daughter Marzelline (soprano Jennifer Welch-Babidge) falls in love with the “handsome” Fidelio. A further obstacle involves the young Jaquino (tenor Matthew Polenzani) who has eyes for the sprightly Marzelline.

Oy vey! What’s a heroine to do?

Well, if you’re Beethoven, you give her and her cohorts with some spirited music to sing. To smooth over the impediments outlined in the above plot description, Bonn’s master craftsman provides audiences with that fabulous canon quartet early on, a number where time literally stands still. In the Met’s modern take, presented in their Live in HD series from October 28, 2000, director Jurgen Flimm and set designer Robert Israel stress oppression and realism, grit and dirt in most respects that are far closer to our present-day reality than some viewers might realize. Torture, holding so-called prisoners by illegitimate means, these are familiar themes.

Most moving of all, and among the glories of this incredible work, are the Act I Prisoners’ Chorus (at Leonore’s urging, she convinces Rocco to allow them a few precious moments of sunlight) and that superb confrontation in Florestan’s cell where you’re left suspended in disbelief as to whether or not he and his wife will come out of this alive. You might find it hard to believe that all the action takes place in Seville, the storied venue of mischievous barbers and seductive gypsy girls. Unfortunately, they’re nowhere to be found, only pain and death abound.

Adding to the veracity of this gloomy scenario, tenor Ben Heppner’s touching Florestan wins the vocal honors for sheer staying power. His Act II monologue, dripped in that eerie dungeon-like jail setting, lit up the Met with a beacon of hope. Contributing to the richness of this scene, that little melodrama just after the tenor’s solo — that half-sung, half-spoken give and take parlando sequence between the veteran Rocco and a half-scared out of her wits Leonore (in disguise as Fidelio) — provide the requisite chills and goosebumps. Tenor Eric Cutler and baritone Andrew Walker acquit themselves admirably as the First and Second Prisoner, respectively, in the earlier courtyard sequence.

Rene’ Pape as the jailer Rocco, with Falk Struckmann as Don Pizarro in ‘Fidelio’

Earlier, too, in Act I, Struckmann’s experiences with Wagner’s Wotan and the Wanderer at Bayreuth and other theaters give his efforts as the villainous Pizarro a believability without straining for effect. Usually, evil of the mustache-twirling type turns this listener/viewer off. Not here, for which we commend Herr Struckmann’s subtler efforts. The same goes for basso Robert Lloyd’s sturdy Don Fernando, the Deus ex machina figure whose hair’s breadth arrival, at that fateful moment when Pizarro is confronted by Leonore’s pistol, is triumphantly announced by a wonderfully piercing trumpet fanfare (first heard in the Leonore Overture No. 3 that Beethoven wrote for this piece), which climaxes in the Act II, scene ii crowd scene where ALL the prisoners are liberated.             

Uniting them all is Ms. Mattila’s impassioned take on the title part. Looking every inch the troubled youth, in prison guard uniform, high boots, cropped hair, and macho male posturing, Mattila’s sterling soprano rang out into the Met auditorium. I’ve been critical of some of her verismo forays, for example her Manon Lescaut in Puccini’s opera, and as Tosca in that hideous Luc Bondy production, thankfully dumped after only a few seasons of wear. She did far better as Strauss’ Salome and as Queen Elisabeth in Verdi’s Don Carlos. But as Leonore/Fidelio, Ms. Mattila earned the lion’s share of applause, as did Pape’s rounded bass tones and upstanding interpretation of the jailer with a heart of gold (heh, heh, quite literally!).  

Good triumphed over evil, if only on the operatic stage.

Andrea Chénier (1996)

An Italian take on the French Revolution (a contradiction in terms?) happened to have come from Umberto Giordano’s hand in the four-act Andrea Chénier from 1896. This once-frequently performed work premiered not two months after Puccini’s La Bohème and less than four years after the same composer’s Tosca. The similarity in plot and characterizations, not to mention the fact that both Tosca and Chénier concentrate their efforts on the soprano, tenor and baritone, proved quite a hit with audiences of the time. Today, Tosca wins the popularity game hands down by far.

Remarkably, there have been several of these revolutionary-type verismo dramas, including a second one by the self-same Signor Giordano, a drawing-room comedy of sorts entitled Madame Sans-Gêne, about a laundress who befriends the up-and-coming Napoleon Bonaparte and, in that opera’s later acts, becomes a rich Countess. Coincidentally or not, both Tosca and Madame Sans-Gêne were plays penned by the prolific Frenchman Victorien Sardou. Vive La France!

Act III of Giordano’s ‘Andrea Chenier’ at the Metropolitan Opera (Photo: Met Opera)

Most authors and musicologists have labeled Andrea Chénier as an offbeat version of those rescue operas discussed above — a not altogether incorrect analysis. This one involves the female protagonist Maddalena di Coigny (soprano) and her attempts to free her lover, the romantic poet and real-life character Chénier (tenor), from the guillotine’s deadly blade. This, after he’s been denounced by Maddalena’s former servant-turned-revolutionary leader Carlo Gérard, a rare example of a good-guy baritone who actually helps the soprano to get her leading man. That both Maddalena and Chénier wind up losing their heads over each other (and, of course, their very lives) misses the point. “Viva la morte insiem!” they shout at the opera’s end: “Long live death together!” Ah, yes, love is blind.

My father always felt that this piece, where the tenor has his work cut out for him from his very first lines, was much too weighty an ordeal for the average operagoer to appreciate. For the most part, I completely agree. My uncle Daniel, who served in Italy during World War II, saw the opera live, probably in one of the regional opera houses to the north. Uncle Daniel was a sergeant in the Brazilian Expeditionary Forces that fought at Monte Cassino and Monte Castello, under U.S. General Mark Clark. That would make a decent opera in itself, I would think. But I don’t believe the above encounter with Giordano’s piece ever convinced my uncle to give opera another shot.

So much for realism, as such. Personally, I prefer the operatic kind. In four swiftly moving acts, Giordano’s warhorse turned out to be a huge crowd pleaser in its glory days. Well, what would you expect when such powerhouse artists of the kind as Del Monaco, Corelli, Tucker, Domingo, Giacomini, Bergonzi, Carreras, Tebaldi, Callas, Milanov, Martón, Freni, Scotto, Millo, Arroyo, Gobbi, Taddei, Warren, Merrill, Bastianini, Sereni, Cappuccilli, and Milnes were around to deliver the goods.      

Without truly big voices to do it justice (and I do mean BIG), Andrea Chénier falls like the proverbial blade onto the heads of its participants. Outgoing personalities are what make or break this piece, along with voices that vibrate and quake with raw emotion, which pay dividends in the end. The plot starts off simply enough, and in similar fashion to its companion piece, Francesco Cilèa’s Adriana Lecouvreur (which premiered in November 1902), with folks scurrying about, to and fro, this way and that.

The first major voice to be heard in the October 15, 1996, Met Opera performance was that of Gérard (Spanish baritone Juan Pons), a servant in the household of the wealthy Countess di Coigny (mezzo Judith Christin), whose comely daughter, the childlike Maddalena (Russian dramatic soprano Maria Guleghina), is the sole object of his affections. His obsession is kept to himself until, in Act II, after the Revolution has overthrown the aristocracy, he spills the beans by telling the spy Incredibile (French character tenor Michel Sénéchal) to keep searching for his lady fair. The spy did not have far to look.

Meantime, the poet Chénier (tenor Luciano Pavarotti, who needs no introduction), who in Act I has also fallen under Maddalena’s spell, vocally wags his finger at the clueless girl for not understanding the true nature of love (in his deeply felt aria, “Un di all azzuro spazio,” known as the Improvviso). In the second act, he unloads on his friend Roucher (baritone Haijing Fu), where the poet tries to convince himself to believe in love and that he IS loved by someone. Roucher warns him that he’s being spied upon, but the poet does not seem to care. He will rendezvous with a beauty he’s recently met and that is that!

Russian soprano Maria Guleghina as Maddalena, with Luciano Pavarotti as Chenier

Meeting up, in secret, with the mysterious Maddalena (who else could it be?), now a fugitive from the Revolution, the lovers sing a duet (what else?). No thanks to our incredible spy, Gérard makes his presence felt and, in the process, is superficially wounded in a sword fight with the poet, clumsily handled by the way. To save them both from arrest and harm, the former servant charges Andrea to protect Maddalena at all costs — how noble of him!

In Act III, Gérard has recovered from his wounds, only to have denounced Chénier as a traitor to the cause. The poet will die after he’s found guilty. Nice to know that justice is swift in that part of town. Out of the blue, Maddalena comes to plead the poet’s case and confess her love for him (“La mamma morta”), but not before Gérard gets off what is probably one of the most famous baritone solos in the Italian repertoire: “Nemico della patria,” or “Enemy of the state.” It starts off as a rant, but ends up in glowingly humanitarian terms, a surefire audience pleaser. Time for the trial, and what a kangaroo court it turns out to be. Andrea is tried and found guilty as charged. And what does he do? He sings another aria, “Si, fui soldato!” “Yes, I was a soldier!” What of it? With that, he writes his own death sentence. Maddalena is overcome with emotion, repeatedly shouting his name to high heaven.

In Act IV, no sooner has the curtain gone up when it’s time for… you guessed it, another aria for Andrea, the lovely “Come un bel di di’ maggio” (“Like a beautiful day in May”), based on an actual poem by the historical Chénier. Geez, when does this guy get to rest? Gérard makes one last attempt to free his friend (who was also his enemy), but no luck. So that the composer and his librettist, Luigi Illica (one half of the team headed by Giuseppe Giacosa that provided Puccini with four of his most popular libretti), could finish up with a slam-bang ending, they resolve to bring Maddalena back; this time, trading clothes and identities with one Idia Legray — flagrantly stealing from Charles Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities, no less! Ending on dual B-flats (with each one trying to outlast the other), both the poet and his muse step up to the plate to get their last haircuts together. (Um, too close a shave for comfort.)

For atmosphere, Giordano filled his work with period songs and, of course, La Marseillaise, the French national anthem. Truly, this potboiler of a piece, in actual performance and when it’s done right, can turn up the electricity and quicken the pulse. Yet, my own live encounter with Andrea Chénier happened to be a single 1979 matinee at the old New York City Opera, starring Canadian tenor Ermanno Mauro, soprano Marilyn Zschau, and baritone Richard Fredricks in the lead roles. Individual moments shone, but overall the opera did not take flight.

The same held true for Nicolas Joël’s spacious Met production. Pavarotti, at the time, was its star attraction. But his immobile, implacable form — a solid-state figure of immense proportions — and ridiculous wig and makeup prevented facile, free-flowing movement to a noticeable degree. Vocally, though, he sang well, his line firm and clean, the words crisp and clear. The goods were delivered, if a tad perfunctorily. Histrionically, there was little in the way of dramatic tension from his part. Where vocal heft and cutting power were needed, Pavarotti provided tonal beauty and lyric purity. On second thought, these were qualities normally lacking in Andrea‘s past. But here, a touch more “oomph” was needed and would have been welcome. This, Luciano could not do, not at that late stage in his career.  

Ditto for Señor Pons, a large man with a robust but formless baritone. High notes were hit full-on, but the poetry, the finesse, and ultimately the soul of Gérard was lacking and wanting. Too, Pons dwarfed the pint-sized Sénéchal, which made for a comical Gaston and LeFou (!) relationship. As for Guleghina, this was one of her more pleasurable assignments, the voice pure and sweet when called for, with plenty of thrust in the upper register. Her earthy portrayal was leagues better than her strained turn as Puccini’s Turandot, where the tone lacked focus, the high notes lost in that Imperial Ice Palace.

Where this production showed its true colors was in the numerous supernumerary and secondary supporting casts, to include bass Paul Plishka’s fussy and antagonistic Matthieu, young contralto Stephanie Blythe’s motherly widow Madelon, and mezzo Wendy Fine’s lusty Bersi. James Levine’s robust conducting did what it could to make this piece sing with feeling and passion. Alas, the whole thing remained earthbound, except when the above minor characters were on stage. For a show depicting the poor, trampled souls of this world, isn’t that what opera’s all about?                

(To be continued….)

Copyright © 2022 by Josmar F. Lopes

An ‘Amen’ for Sidney Poitier

Sidney Poitier during 2006 Cannes Film Festival – Opening Night Gala – Inside at Palais de Festival in Cannes, France. (Photo by Toni Anne Barson/WireImage)

There will be many tributes to the late actor-director Sidney Poitier, especially during Black History Month in February. So please excuse me if I get a jump on the celebration.

The Florida-born, Bahamian Islands native is sure to be honored in death, as he was in life, for having been the first Black male to win an Academy Award as Best Actor for the 1963 movie Lilies of the Field. Not necessarily a fair representation of his abilities overall, Poitier’s outer calm and inner fire captured the attention of audiences from the very start of his stage and screen career.

That career came about amid the turbulence of the 1950s and sixties, if you can believe it. A time of increased racial tension and polarization.

Poitier’s official birthdate, February 20, 1927 (some sources gave the year as 1924), failed to indicate that he had come into this world several months too soon. The term “premature” is often used. Not expected to live, little Sidney overcame this apparent setback, mostly through his mother’s prayers and an inherent ability to rise above the challenges. There would be more challenges to come. If anything, the rumors of Poitier’s early passing had been greatly exaggerated.

I will not attempt to convey every facet of Poitier’s life and work. That’s best done by others. Still, most people familiar with the actor’s output, especially those from the early fifties to the 1970s and eighties, would have known in advance about his contributions to the form. What I will do, then, if I may beg your indulgence, is relate my experience with his work to the times in which we lived.

I remember first seeing Poitier on our twelve-inch TV set, that tiny black, white and gray window to the world at large, where everyone and everything was reduced to miniscule proportions. Was this correct? No, not really. The proper setting for your favorite film stars was in the movie theater. Larger than life, that’s the ticket. Not something that I was privy to in my youth, however; certainly not on a regular basis. Too young, too soon, we were told. But you made do with what you had — and that’s what we had.

How about that television set? Nope. There simply weren’t that many people of color represented on TV in the early to mid-1960s, period. Things changed, though. And certainly, by the end of the decade the appearance of Black performers and artists of color became more prevalent. On both TV and in the movies. And you didn’t need a color television set to tell you that.

‘Lilies of the Field’ (1963)

Oscar-winner Sidney Poitier (left) as Homer Smith with Lilia Skala in ‘Lilies of the Field’ (1963)

I finally got to see Poitier on the big screen when our high school held a special showing of Lilies of the Field. That’s the one where a handyman (Poitier, naturally) was recruited, if you want to call it that — badgered is more to the point — by a group of enterprising German nuns (penguins in black-and-white habits) who cajole him into building a chapel out in the Arizona desert.

Say again? Build a what, out where??? Those insistent nuns must have been out of their uninhibited minds, but what did I know about nuns, German or otherwise? Although baptized a Catholic, I was raised a Methodist. No matter, we got the idea that Sidney, with his solid work ethic and boundless good cheer — in sum, his inbred concern for life’s unfortunates — would give in and build those nuns their precious chapel.

From the direction the plot had taken, you’d expect the obvious would come about sooner rather than later. That is, the means justified the ends to which these German nuns had gone to in order to get their way with our man Sidney, called Homer Smith in the film. Homer Smith? How boring, how bland. Oh, well, who said an actor’s life was easy. As if what we had to face as kids weren’t enough, adults too had to put up with what they could get. But Sidney got the better of the deal. He took home an Oscar for his efforts. Go get ‘em, Sid!

Wait, what about that song? Some silly ditty or other that Homer taught those same nuns? I don’t remember the words, but I do know the refrain: “Aaa-a-men! Aaa-a-men! Aaa-AAA-men, Aaa-men, Aaa-men!” Yeah, that’s the spirit! A real “feel good” number. And so damn catchy, too. We came out of the auditorium chanting those same words: “Aaa-a-men! Aaa-a-men! Aaa-AAA-men, Aaa-men, Aaa-men!” A bunch of noisy Black, white, Irish, Hispanic, Chinese, Italian, and Jewish kids, singing along to the tune and joining in the refrain. Oh, that was so much fun! Never knew a film could do that to a person, let alone a bashful teenager in the first-year of high school.

Heck, that was back in ‘69, when I first saw Lilies of the Field. I learned a lot about perseverance from that flick, about charity and brotherhood, and having a solid work ethic, too. Was Sidney Poitier responsible? Not that I looked forward to working like a dog, the way Homer Smith did as he dove head-first into his labors. Man, they should have nicknamed him “Hercules,” not Homer. What a workaholic!

No matter, it was all Greek to me. And as far I could tell, those lilies were all lily white.

‘To Sir, With Love’ (1967)

To Sir, With Love’ (1967), starring Sidney Poiter and pop singer Lulu (left, next to Poitier)

So what would Sidney do for an encore? Well, now, we’d all heard about Poitier’s next venture, To Sir, With Love from 1967. Even our teachers knew and talked endlessly about the film. Curious, I wondered why they would do that. What was so special about this picture that attracted the attention of our teachers? A work filmed in Great Britain, of all places? And what did Merry Old England have to do with the South Bronx where I resided? Quite a lot, I soon discovered.  

With Poitier as our guide, the “Sir” in the title, how could I go wrong? In my naiveté, I imagined he had been knighted by Queen Elizabeth for services rendered — about as misguided an association as one could possibly have made. But again, I was wrong on that count, too.

In that British-made production, Sidney played a teacher with an engineering background who, due to a lack of available opportunities in his field (code for discrimination), takes a job at a school in London’s rough East End district populated by miscreants and juvenile delinquents. Oh joy! You know the rest: The well-mannered teacher, or “Sir” as he insists upon being addressed, has trouble reaching out to those same rough-house, working-class young people.

Eventually, through discipline and so-called “tough love” (a term not even coined at the time) that included a one-sided boxing match with one of the students, Sir Sidney manages to impose a semblance of order and discipline on his charges as well as earn their respect in the “claws-room.” Do I hear a Pink Floyd number in progress? “We don’t need no education, we don’t need no thought control”? Not exactly, although one of the students, Babs (played by pop singer Lulu), warbles the title tune, “To Sir, With Love,” at a dance gathering. The song went on to become a best seller in North America. Pink Floyd came later.

There’s also a racial angle to the film, which was right up Sidney’s alley. I didn’t know this at the time, but the actor had, himself, played a juvenile delinquent in the earlier The Blackboard Jungle (1955). He was ably assisted by fellow troublemakers Vic Morrow and the unknown Jamie Farr. And it, too, featured a hit number, “Rock Around the Clock,” sung by Bill Haley and His Comets, used intermittingly throughout the picture. Funny how art can imitate life.

Another thing: These types of hard-hitting, ripped from the headlines features were fairly common in not-so-merry-old England. In fact, this was a period marked by the phrase “Angry young men” that went on to become an accepted movie genre. Gritty dramas such as Look Back in Anger (1959), Saturday Night and Sunday Morning (1961), This Sporting Life (1963), and The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner (1962) made stars out of angry young male actors Richard Burton, Albert Finney, Richard Harris, and Tom Courtney, respectively.   

Looking back myself — not in anger but in hindsight — at To Sir, With Love; and comparing this British-made product to what was happening in middle America (especially in the big cities), it’s reasonable to assume that lack of opportunities for minorities and other ethnicities, in combination with prejudices and negative attitudes toward those same minorities, had contributed mightily to growing racial tensions.

We were privy to this up close and personal. “In your face” was the everyday norm and, by any and all means, no exaggeration. Confrontations and trying to avoid them became commonplace. “What you lookin’ at, man?” “Nothin’, man, I ain’t lookin’ at nothin’.” You better believe it… You looked the other way. And quickly.

‘In the Heat of the Night’ (1967)

‘In the Heat of the Night’ (1967), directed by Norman Jewison, with Sidney Poitier, Rod Steiger

One film that refused to look the other way, or turn the other cheek, was In the Heat of the Night. Your standard police procedural, an all-too-common feature of countless TV series from the fifties and sixties, tended to pass through the kitchen blender in endless “repeat mode.” But it finally met its match in Poitier’s cultivated hands.

This is the one where an obviously intelligent Black police inspector, traveling incognito in plain clothes, is stopped and frisked and treated disrespectfully by bigoted Southern policemen from Sparta, Mississippi. Yep, you read that right: Sparta. The very name spells confrontation and battle. Included was your stereotypical potbellied police chief, energetically portrayed by gum-chewing Method actor Rod Steiger. A man who took the heat of those Southern nights seriously, so much so that he lived his part 24/7.

Chief Gillespie was the name, and blame was his game. That is, he and his police cohorts took it upon themselves to pin the murder of a rich industrialist on the least likely but most available suspect: a Black man in fancy clothing whose uppity manners and holier-than-thou “atty-tood” riles the chief to no end.  

As for Sidney, moderation and restraint were in his blood, not exactly compatible with Steiger’s more easily combustible persona. Nevertheless, I couldn’t take my eyes off these two. What a pair! Their rapid repartee became a modern reconstruction of a medieval joust. When they were in the scene, I felt as if I were in cinema heaven: This is what real stars looked and acted like. They yelled at each other, shouted bloody murder. Steiger spewed forth racial epithets with as much bile and venom as any stereotypical Southern sheriff would do.

I questioned, to myself, why Sidney had been forced to take such abuse from this ignorant hick. Even when it was revealed that Virgil Tibbs, Poitier’s name in the film, wasn’t a local at all but a visiting police detective from the big city of Philadelphia. That did it! That’s all Chief Gillespie had to hear. And, boy, did Gillespie lay into Virgil with all the insult and injury in his possession. You could tell he was getting under Virgil’s skin.

“You pretty sure of yourself, ain’t you, Virgil? Virgil? That’s a funny name for a n*****r boy to come from Philadelphia! What do they call you up there?”

Yeah, Virgil, go on, tell ‘em. What DO they call you up in Philly? I wanted to know. Heck, my whole family wanted to know! Which is why my entire being stood on the edge of our living room couch, waiting for that master punchline to hit: “They call me MISTER Tibbs!” Wham, bam! Down and out for the count!

Sidney’s verbal comeback was nothing short of miraculous. But it paled next to the slap felt round the world. The one Inspector Tibbs gave another Southern bigot, the plantation owner Endicott (Larry Gates, a New York actor), and a chief suspect in the crime, an electrifying sequence that made movie history and audiences gasp in astonishment. WOW! Black man fights back! Never saw THAT happen before!

With battle lines drawn and the real culprit caught, an uneasy truce begins to settle between Detective Tibbs and Chief Gillespie. They part ways, but with a grudging respect and acknowledgment of one another’s abilities.

The remainder of Poitier’s career led him to the director’s chair, along with parts in more “staid” productions. He partook of the growing Blaxploitation film experience of the seventies and eighties. He helmed movies starring his lifelong friend and fellow Civil Rights activist Harry Belafonte. He appeared alongside comic Bill Cosby and directed Gene Wilder and Richard Pryor in farcical escapist fare. He starred as Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall in a made-for-TV movie. And he appeared ever-so-sporadically in supporting parts, taking his acting career full circle.

But for me, personally, I still see him in my mind’s eye as Detective Virgil Tibbs. As Sir, With Love. And, of course, as handyman Homer Smith. Always honest, always elegant, always self-aware. His eyes fixed, his chin out. His back firm and rigid, his stance straight and tall. The look of a self-possessed man. A Black man with dignity. And, above all, with pride. His bearing spoke volumes. If his death be not proud, then let’s focus on his life. Of that, we can all be proud.

So say it loud, people! Can we hear an “Amen” for Sidney Poitier? Go ahead, say it! I can’t HEAR YOU!!!

That’s better.

Copyright © 2022 by Josmar F. Lopes