| From: Karen Mercedes To: VOCALIST <vocalist> Subject: Re: Olympia interpretation? Send reply to: VOCALIST <vocalist>
On Wed, 2 Feb 2000, Kylie Purcell wrote:
> > > Hi, Kylie again:) > > I was wondering if anyone could offer me some advice on > interpretation of Olympia from Tales of Hoffmann? > > Yes, I know she's a wind-up doll but doing all manner of stiff movements > just won't work for me, the tension of holding myself rigid > naturally affects the voice and I'm sure you can imagine the results...
I wish you could see some of the better performances on video of this role. If you can possibly get your hands on the Covent Garden video with Placido Domingo, it features Luciana Serra in what is one of her signature roles.
Ruth Ann Swenson at the Met currently in this role repeated the same "business" that Gwendolyn Bradley used in the earlier incarnation of this production, but without all the extreme cartoon-character flourishes of Bradley (which were, frankly, offensive). She managed to avoid physical tension by using her arm as a kind of pendulum that kept the mechanism going when she sang.
The best Olympia I've ever seen, however, was Arleen Auger in Florence in 1983. She had the subtle mechanical-doll moves down so wonderfully, it was amazing to watch. On the other hand, I didn't like her vocal performance nearly as much as Serra's (Serra is the best Olympia I've heard and one of the best I've seen).
There's no reason to be *stiff* just because you're mechanical. What made Auger's performance so wonderful is that she had obviously first choreographed her movements as if she were a human being, then she analysed every transition (e.g., arm raising, body turning, head turning, etc.) and created a series of linear steps that got the body part from point a to point b rather than using the human arcs and curves. If you can imagine an arc, then draw a series of points along that arc and connect those points with straight lines (lots of points and lots of lines), you will understand what I mean. Auger first figured out what the arcs/curves were, then figured out where the points along those arcs/curves should be, then drew the connecting lines (I say "draw", what I mean is traced those lines with her movements). I'm not sure this is clear, but the point is that she never really stopped moving, so there was no chance for her to freeze or tense up, but the overall "sweep" of each gesture was definitely broken up into a series of little linear stages that created the mechanical doll effect.
The most important thing is to keep your posture absolutely unchanging (except in those points where you wind down - most singers in this role end up bending at the waist as if flopping over; though I preferred Serra's version, in which she sang standing in front of a chair, and basically fell back into the chair when she weound down), and your face absolutely impassive, with eyes staring, blinking very deliberately (the way a doll blinks), and when eyes move, moving them from side to side in deliberate linear movements (again, as a doll would).
I really think your best bet is to scrounge up some videos - even the Powell/Pressburger film of HOFFMANN might help, though the Olympia in that (Moira Shearer) was danced rather than sung.
KM ===== There is delight in singing, tho' none hear Beside the singer. - Walter Savage Landor ----- MY WEB PAGE: http://www.radix.net/~dalila/index.html MY NEIL SHICOFF PAGE: http://www.radix.net/~dalila/shicoff/shicoff.html
| |