Arminio, or as you like it

«Vincere aut mori!» — «To win or to die!»(1)

I have to confess at once — I liked it. And I liked it so much that for the first time in my life (!) I started to re-watch the scenes that caused my special enthusiasm long before I had finished the complete viewing of the entire record. It was long after midnight when I stopped somewhere in the beginning of the 2nd Act in order to continue next day from the same place but quite unexpectedly I started to watch «Arminio» from the very beginning. So, in general, the whole process stretched out for 4 days.

In my opinion «Arminio» (Georg Friedrich Handel, 1737) where Max Emanuel Cencic had realized himself not only as the singer but also as the stage director is the totally unique experience of the embodiment — on the stage, in the stage space of what is usually called the Film-Opera, that genre which was extremely popular half a century ago.
The incredible talent of Max Emanuel Cencic as a singer and as an actor, his intelligence and wonderful sense of humor resulted in the end into amazing ability being modern and authentic at the same time, to follow not the form but the content and «Arminio» became one of the most striking and convincing manifestations of this ability.

The viewer is drawn in action from the very first moment. Rotating sceneries based in the center of a slewing platform are imparting to all around the tragic tone, dark and somber. Enormously huge, they look like an old chest of drawers or the gates of the old castle, or a secret door, which turns around its axis and gives a passage for brave travelers into mysterious cave, and in some moments they remind a gravestone which is shifting on its pedestal, opening the door to the Underworld. But whatever they are, their awkward shapes and majestic rotation attracts attention and creates the sense of mystery. It happens quite in a childish and straightforward way: the question that appears when you first look at them: «God, what is this and why it is here?» flows smoothly into the foretaste of mystery and into the eager expectancy of the denouement. The slewing platform carries heroes to the audience where they come alive and begin to act. The plot «exposition» gets a visual realization and stronger catches your attention. Motionless figures look so much alike to the small porcelain figurines on a mantel — and your memory brings you back to Andersen’s fairy tales, Puppet Theater, and children’s picture books.

In addition to the marvelous music and charming (not in all cases) singing in «Arminio» enchants not only the text but also the subtext. Light and ironic, it is woven from allusions and is extremely rich in associations. Their chains start to line up from the very first scenes; they are whimsically intertwined and are accompanying you throughout the performance. Unobtrusive, but sticky, they wrap you in a thin web and immersed you in the atmosphere of hints and provocations without giving opportunity to ask «why» and «what for». Yes, of course, here they are, some moments in this stage production which can be called «provocative», moments that can cause questions and doubts. However, in defense of the director’s vision of Max Emanuel Cencic, I would say that, firstly, the word «baroque» is translating from Italian as «bizarre», «inclined to excesses» and this one already must justify him, and secondly, the authenticity in «Arminio» is achieving not through the form but through the style. Yes, the action takes place not in Roman times, but it is very close to the time of Handel.

Moreover, if you will carefully dig into the history — you can find very clear parallels with the Thirty years war (1618—1648) and Franco-Prussian war of 1870–1871, and what is the most important, their main motive — the struggle between the national self-determination and the shamelessness of Imperial totalitarianism. Portrait of Arminio, which is placed on the stage, refers us to the dynasty of the Dukes of Baden-Durlach, one of which, Frederick VI von Baden-Durlach, participated just in the Thirty Years War and was a great military leader and the other — Karl III, who had built in 1715 a new capital of the margraviate, Karlsruhe, (where today is Handel`s Academy situated). And the most famous became Karl Friedrich von Baden (Karl IV Friedrich, 1728—1811), whose reign was one of the most striking examples of «enlightened absolutism» — he had supported schools and universities, jurisprudence, economy and culture. He banned tortures in 1767, and serfdom — in 1783. Count Komarovsky was remembering in 1790: «Margrave was the most virtuous and respectable of all the German princes. When we moved to the borders of his possessions <…> we found a few men, who were plowing in the field. Count Rumyantsev said to me „Ask them who their owner is“. And they answered me: „we have no owner, but we have the father, the Margrave of Baden“. Probably for this reason the Empress Ekaterina (NB: Ekaterina (Catherine) II) decided that her grandson have to marry to one of the princesses of this blessed house.» (NB: The Princess Louise-Mary-Augusta of Baden, daughter of Karl Ludwig von Baden, the Margrave of Baden-Durlach and of Amalia, nee Princess of Hessen-Darmstadt — later Elizaveta Alekseevna, the wife of the Russian Emperor Alexander I). The reign of Karl IV Friedrich (from 1746 to 1811) had become one of the longest in the European and world history.
But regardless to all historical details we have to admit that the most authentic and the most veracious in this opera are the characters, psychological accuracy of their portraits and consistency of the plot twists.

Dashing grunt-the guy Tullio (Owen Willets), with his aiming on a glory and victory at any price — we see the pragmatic mind with disdain pertaining to amorous feelings. Lascivious pantomime, which he performs with one of the soldiers clearly defines his own attitude to love in general and to the love of his boss, in particular. Use what is at hand, without losing or wasting time. Glory, victory and loot — that is all that has meaning and value. In his opinion, Varo (Juan Sancho) is not more than a fool spending his time on unnecessary garbage. But Tullio is too smart, or rather, too pragmatic to show his contempt openly.

The same pragmatic is Segest (Pavel Kudinov), the father of Thusnelda, Arminio`s wife (Lauren Snouffer) and of Sigismondo (Aleksandra Kubas-Kruk) who is in love with Ramiza, Arminio`s sister (Gaia Petrone). Segest covets the power, he needs the throne. Sigismondo certainly will be a lousy ruler, it is obvious that he is nothing but a mask, a screen; the real sovereign will be, of course, Segest — and so we have the palace coup with genealogical and very far-reaching plans. As for Arminio (Max Emanuel Cencic) — who can say does he know about all this stuff, has he any guesses, and did he suspect Segest from the very beginning? Maybe it’s not a coincidence when he chases away his sister Ramiza in such a cold and careless manner, interrupting the meeting between two young lovers.
«The proud haughty»… And maybe this contempt, which Arminio demonstrates so openly, finally becomes a «trigger» for Segest, for his hatred and betrayal?

Varo — dreamy and weak in spirit, Tullio`s boss, the Roman military commander. «The most important for a lover is not to be offended with the fact that his rival proved to be more successful»… Varo, though an officer, is not a knight absolutely and therefore his admiration with Thusnelda`s portrait — old as the world motive from the tales and romances of chivalry where the hero falls in love with the girl who seems to him an embodiment of beauty and is ready for any feat to save and protect her, — here is transformed into something exact opposite, but — must I say (!) — quite modern. Cencic`s interpretation, his viewpoint as the stage director turns this old tune inside out and instead of lofty feelings, higher sensibility and knight`s worship, we see the banal scene of masturbation and the excited, passionate, even heroic, should I say, music of Varo`s Aria only sharpens the «sacrilegious» character of this very scene. And what a paradox: weakness of the spirit inherent to Varo`s nature that was ridiculed by Tullio here is even more emphasized and accentuated by the triumph of utilitarianism, against which — in words but not in deeds — is protesting Varo.

The same idea prevails in the scene where Thusnelda tries to persuade Varo to abandon her and save her husband`s life. Varo is really astonished by the nobility of Arminio`s soul: his enemy, this proud man, in fact, left his own wife as a gift, as inheritance to the former rival. But nevertheless he behaves as a master of situation and as a new husband of Thusnelda although her actual husband is still alive. The violence, which Varo finally commits over his beloved Thusnelda, for him is nothing but implementation of rights which had been already given to him; in any case, he’d prefers to think so.
The fact, that Arminio (due to the sudden attack of Cherusci`s army) managed to avoid guillotine and was returned to the prison (from what afterwards Sigismondo releases him), — is Varo`s merit only by form. In fact, it`s again his weak spirit under the mask of noble speeches and actions. And therefore, the news about his death in the battle is perceived with a slight sigh of relief — so worthless, entangled in his own desires and ambitions, looks this hero.

Speaking of Thusnelda we have to say that she from the very beginning is afraid of Varo and his harassments — losing her spouse she risks to become a prisoner and a concubine. Her father cannot be the protection. Her idea of escaping has nothing to do with military cunning; panics is pushing Thusnelda to this decision and she forces her husband to forget his duty playing on his feelings, on his love to her.
The treachery of honor leads to the fact that Thusnelda suffers double defeat — double loss of honor. However, we must give her credit, while she is clearly understanding what can be the price for Varo`s mercy, she hopes that her beauty and her pleas will touch his heart and he will act like a knight and not like a boor who received at last an opportunity to retaliate for all endured humiliation and coldness. To get her husband back she has to go through the atonement — to pass through that very fear she had fled from.
«The flight is not а cowardice, if the true love offers it…»…. But running away is a cowardliness in all cases, you can’t escape yourself, and through the redemption is going not only Thusnelda but Arminio as well — when he is supplicating for his wife`s protection; and when, going to the scaffold, he leaves his beloved woman to his former rival and enemy.

Really great (because of unexpected mixture of touching attitude and tender ridicule) is the psychological portrait of Sigismondo, son of Segest, — a weak, frightened, indecisive child, living in the world of illusions and fairy tales. It is enough to take a look how from the directorial point of view is resolved the scene with a handkerchief — the primary one (as I think) in understanding the nature of this character. When Ramiza, who was just threw up and who really needs a handkerchief (of course, she doesn’t have it, it is absolutely in her style) requires it from Sigismondo, poor daddy’s boy can’t find it.
But he immediately finds one for Thusnelda, though she does not need it at all. Moreover, we must note, the handkerchief, which he offers after a lot of cautious hesitations, is not his own, it belongs to Thusnelda. And here is the essence of the Sigismondo`s character — he is always «inappropriate», not «in time». The quarrel with his beloved leads him to a total despair and to childish intimidations to commit a suicide, but reconciliation immediately returns him to the previous levity. And look — in the middle of deadly perils our carefree and resilient Sigismondo selflessly rummages in the casket with cosmetics, giving himself up.
And yet in his heart there is a place for loyalty, love and dream and they give him the strength to resist. His rebellion against his father (when Segest declares his own plans concerning Arminio and Sigismondo`s fate), though looks as a childish caprice (and to say the truth, Segest qualifies it right in this way), in the end develops into a truly heroic act — he frees Arminio from the prison and he, himself, informs his father about this «betrayal».

Some deviations from original plot, although they can be criticized — in my opinion, are completely justified thanks to the same psychological veracity which in fact is the main leitmotif of this opera.
Yes, in original version Arminio forgives Segest, the traitor, but let us put our hand on our heart and let’s face it: Arminio would be useless as a ruler if in such situation he really would let this scoundrel to go wherever he likes. Real, genuine Arminio of those times, times of Varo and Roman Empire, simply would have blown the head of the snake right in front of everyone; but in the Baroque epoch there would be just as it is in Cencic`s staging: «Oh, yes-yes, my darling, all is fine, go-go». And finger to his fellows: «take him to the chopping block, ok, well done». And he, himself, with the family — to the dinner table, as if nothing had happened.
Yes, weird she is, little wildish baby Ramiza, Arminio`s sister that barely stands on her feet, still not recovered from yesterday’s hangover, and was barfed right in the most pathos moment. A shocking performance, not argue! On the other hand, try to remember well known masterpieces, which are characterized with even more naturalism, such as Fellini`s «Satyricon» or «Casanova» — well, what to do, so were that times. Just in movies we are already accustomed to it, but in the theatre and Opera not yet.

But, why not? I seriously doubt that Cherusci had very ascetical manners and if to speak of the «Golden youth» — they at all times behave in the same way. Moreover, the «high society» of previous centuries who always allowed themselves not to take care about any moral requirements and always left the virtue to the lot of those who had nothing more to take care of, today greatly expanded its borders and became just a «society»; and so our «small, but proud bird» Ramiza, even drunk and stoned but being well acquainted with what honor and loyalty are, deserves admiration and respect. And these feelings are clearly visible on the faces of guards, though they are dying from laughter, looking at all this «shocking», flatly incompatible with heroic and passionate speeches, which she utters.

Funny it is, but all the way long I was remembering our history and our classic such as the novel Alexey Tolstoy «Peter I», and «Vivat, gardemariny!», which was filmed by Svetlana Druzhinina. Pavel Kudinov in the scene where Segest tries to persuade Varo and Tullio to kill Arminio, was simply an embodiment of Ivan Susanin who is trying to persuade the Poles to take the proposed route, and in the scene where Sigismondo declares that he had freed Arminio, and Kudinov-Segest grabs the box with the tongs, hammers and other tools, in my head annoyingly attended the famous dialogue from the «Formula of Love» by Mark Zakharov, between the two heroes when one of them is trying to seduce a young girl:

— She will come with a blacksmith.
— With the blacksmith? Why do we need a blacksmith? No, we do not need a blacksmith…
(NB: Blacksmith is the girl`s father).
Very understandable, should I say — to live as long as possible is a natural desire of everyone.

Talking about the costumes, it should be recognized that, no doubt, Baroque Opera can be sung in a suit and sneakers and even in a bathing suit — if you prefer. Today, in most cases, it is usually so and not only with Baroque. But for my taste, such anachronisms do symbolize either the low level of Opera directing or the reluctance to be bothered. Or (what is the main reason to my own opinion) the absence of necessary funds and as one of manifestations of this fact, that the stars fee and expenses for their staff ate so much money that quite nothing was left for the decent sets and costumes. But the audience comes to the Opera not only to hear (this can be done at home, on a couch) but also to see the staging. And perhaps we should remember not only about interests of the stars who are singing but about interests of the audience as well, because in the end, all these stars are singing for the audience and not only for themselves and their own bank accounts.

What was especially delightful in «Arminio» — Maestro Cencic had found a job for all participants of his staging. Even for the extras who played roles of Varo`s soldiers. To say the truth, they were the most fortunate ones. They not only ate and drank; they smoked and even sang as a choir, together with soloists. Is it not what is called happiness?
And in fact, I’m really sorry that may be I will never see this opera «live» well as other stagings of Max Emanuel Cencic that exist already and that are going to come, but the pleasure I had received is so great that I have to admit: «There is no need to grieve about things unfulfilled but there is the need to be grateful for what you have». And besides, all has its own time. Perhaps the Destiny will give me a smile and one evening I`ll find myself at the Opera House, watching one of these wonderful stage performances instead of listening to them on a couch in headphones, who knows?!

NB
1. Motto of Masonic Degree «The Knight Kadosh».

July 2017
Saint-Petersburg