Evaluating Wagner
is very different from evaluating
other composers. His works aren’t
well assessed in a formulaic manner.
Understanding how the drama works
at deeper levels is crucial to any
perceptive assessment. Siegfried
poses special challenges. Despite
being a unified work, the Ring’s individual
operas are quite distinct. Siegfried
is, in some ways more intense because
it centres on three figures, the Wanderer,
Mime and Siegfried. The whole drama
pivots on what these figures represent,
throughout Wagner’s entire worldview.
Unlike, say, Das Rheingold,
where unexceptional singing from minor
characters is not critical, the core
performances in Siegfried make
or break the opera.
The present performance
is wonderful because of Graham Clark.
His Mimes vary with different productions
because he understands the importance
of integrating character development
with the overall interpretation. Here,
his Mime is strikingly complex. Part
insect, part human, this Mime is a
troglodyte who scrapes an existence
living off others, like a parasite.
Jealousy consumes him yet he is unable
to do anything original of his own
to get ahead. Instead, he takes from
others, thinking that somehow, by
stealing what they have, and then
destroying them, he can triumph. Even
Alberich, in comparison, has greater
integrity, despite his evil. Clark’s
every movement enhances the depiction
of Mime as parasite. His hands twitter
the way ground beetles twitch; his
head moves like an insect sensing
the air for spoils or danger. His
costume, by the award-winning Eiko
Ishioka, is a fantastical conflation
of tramp and dung beetle, complete
with scaly, hairy nether regions.
Alberich’s sexuality caused him to
attack the Rhinemaidens and later
engender Hagen. Here, Mime uses his
equivalent of pubic hair in the potion
he mixes to poison Siegfried. It is
brilliant, subtle touches like this
which bring out the deep levels in
the drama which make the Ring the
powerful work it is, details completely
lost in superficial and clichéd
work.
One of Wagner’s preoccupations
was the contrast between direct action
and derivative action. Secondary producers,
such as Alberich, who used other people’s
labour to profit were tainted. Wotan,
despite his failings, was essentially
a seeker after first-hand knowledge
and experience. Hence the interaction
between the Wanderer and Mime dramatises
two completely opposed ways of living.
Wherever the Wanderer may be journeying,
he’s observing and learning, and willing
to impart knowledge, while foregoing
the comforts of hearth and home. Mime
won’t share with him willingly - so
different from Sieglinde’s hospitality
- and only lets him stay for what
he might get in return. As the Wanderer
says, Mime wastes his questions on
subjects he already knows about because
he isn’t actually interested in anything
but himself. John Bröcheler’s
Wanderer is a charismatic figure,
dressed in black veils. His voice
is resonant with gravitas: this Wanderer
is no passive observer but all too
aware of the danger Mime and Alberich
represent. The contrast between Bröcheler’s
singing and Clark’s is delicious,
both completely in character and in
superb form.
Heinz Kruse has the
voice for Siegfried, if not the looks.
On the other hand, Siegfried doesn’t
"have" to be a paragon of
youthful perfection. He is a simple-minded
innocent after all, without graces,
who, without the destiny ordained
for him might have just been another
boorish yokel. His words of hate for
Mime may sear the text, but Kruse’s
Siegfried lives for the moment, and
doesn’t feed on bitterness - a Niebelung
trait. I was much less convinced by
the Waldvogel, sung by Stefan Pangratz.
We may be more accustomed to the role
sung by a woman, but dramatically
it works well with an androgynous
character. Pangratz’s voice though,
trained in Bach and counter-tenor
repertoire, doesn’t quite convey the
mystery of who the bird is, and why
it knows so much. Perhaps the idea
was to stress the fragility of Siegfried’s
new knowledge? Or the vulnerability
of the natural world? Or is it in
deliberate contrast to the subterranean
grotesquery of Mime and Alberich?
Does it refer to the idea of beauty
glimpsed by the earthbound Fafner
and Fasolt? Given that it raises so
many significant interpretative insights,
I’m inclined to agree that the use
of a male voice in the part is very
much in keeping with the spirit of
the music drama overall. There are
plenty of straightforwardly beautiful
female Waldvogels, so in the context
of this production, this has its merits.
In my earlier
review of Das Rheingold
in this cycle I wrote of Audi’s decision
to bring the orchestra on stage, integrating
the music directly with stage action.
In Das Rheingold, the idea
worked very well, focusing attention
on the drama and music, not the trappings
of scenery. Real Wagnerians have known
for decades that the cycle is based
on ideas, not on specific mythology,
but Teutonic kitsch has a stultifying
stranglehold on popular misconception.
Audi’s "no set" set should
be a required antidote for newcomers
to the cycle. As in the earlier opera,
putting the orchestra on-stage inspires
glorious playing. Haenchen is superb,
galvanising a tight, precise and very
animated performance. It’s faster
paced than usual and surprisingly
lucid. This is a Siegfried to listen
to, as well as watch - though missing
Clark’s Mime would be a shame. But
because Siegfried is more concentrated
than Das Rheingold, it works
less well having the orchestra on
stage. At moments the intensity of
the interplay between Mime, Siegfried
and the Wanderer is interrupted by
the sight of the conductor or a musician
in the background. Nonetheless this
is an admirable production, very highly
recommended.
.
Anne Ozorio
BUY
NOW
Siegfried: Heinz Kruse 
[3 DVDs: 273:00] 
