[lit-ideas] Dr. Atomic
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 19:09:29 EDT
I'm enjoying this.
Donal is I don't know arguing what against W. O. -- Witty, Witters, etc.
Donal does not seem a sympathetic Witty(Wittersian).
I contributed with this thing on 'element', which I'm glad spawned a good
exchange with R. Paul and P. Stone culminating in an all-telling quote by
Malcolm who _knew_. (Thread: "Elementary, Dr. Watson").
Note that there is a lot of confusion in Witters: "thing", "object",
'atom', etc.
Most people -- e.g. G. Myro in Rudiments of Logic -- take the 'molecular'
versus 'atomic' thing as good:
p it is raining
p & q it is raining and it is snowing
---- "p & q" being a _molecule_. Imagine the dialogue:
MALCOLM: You kept saying, 'atom' this, 'atom' that. You were not being
_literal_, were you?
WITTERS. Well, we _were_ very seriously at Cambridge then with Russell and
Eddington on Heisenberg's developments, so -- who knows maybe an _atom_ is
sometimes an atom.
Cheers,
JLS
--- Below an opera must:
DR. ATOMIC - watch it and change, February 13, 2009
By Ciel H. (Boston MA) - See all my reviews
It was recommended that I spend a night with this modern opera, after
which I would have developed a new language. I did. Hours well spent. A side
bonus is finer understanding of people I know that are the children of the
scientists. Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Report this Report this| Permalink
Comment
2 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
Can't completely recommend it, January 7, 2009
By figaro "jacoba" (Eugene, OR United States) - See all my reviews
Here are the positives: a very nice dvd, fine sets, a lovely libretto,
very enjoyable orchestration, and very good singing for the most part. The
tenor was slightly weak, but I've come to believe they generally all are in
these modern operas, because the really good tenors are out singing Italian
opera. Anyway, all the other singers were extremely good and enjoyable. What
ruins it all for me, is the generally ugly, repetitive and dull vocal
line. I kept thinking how it could have been made to be enjoyable all the time
I was listening. Don't get me wrong - there were some magical moments where
it appeared Adams really took care with the vocal melody and it was very
lovely but these moments were way too few and far between - it seemed for
the most part he just quickly jotted down tons and tons of recitative as fast
as he could. I found it very annoying, and I was longing for more great
material for these terrific singers all through the show. If the vocal line
were more polished, I would definitely have said Adams achieved a
masterpiece, but the lack of it, when everything else was so lovely, left me
very
disappointed. Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Report this Report this| Permalink
Comment
0 of 17 people found the following review helpful:
Fatuous, December 29, 2008
By Michael "olustee" (Wisconsin, USA) - See all my reviews
All right, I'm not a fan of Adams' music: it's hard to make minimalist
music reach very far, which comes down to saying that harmonic stretch is the
essence of what makes western classical music work. There might be some
disagreement there, which is fine with me.
What bothers me is what bothers me about Adams' other political
("political") operas: he deals with controversial subject matter and then
pretends
that it's not controversial because he's "seeing all sides." This allows him
the intellectually dishonest freedom to both "do" the story and not do the
story: he tells the story and then refuses to deal with the simple fact
that these stories deal with moral rights and wrongs. If Tom Ferrell is right
and we've got still another "America does someone dirty" piece of left-wing
claptrap, then that makes my point about Adams right there. On the other
hand, Nixon in China, eg. and also the opera that "gave a chance" to muslim
terrorists to tell us all about their version of why they kill people from
"their own authentic viewpoint": both of these both [...]-foot around in
pursuit of the most squishy of squishy leftist peacemongering while at the
same time pretending to taking the high road and turning "serious" human
situations into "great art" (Adams? Great art? Please.), thereby giving their
treatments the factitious appearance of profound, sensitive, perceptive (etc.
etc.) insight into "the human struggle."
Sappy.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Report this Report this| Permalink
Comment
0 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
A brilliant production BUT, December 26, 2008
By Richard Chilson (Minneapolis, MN United States) - See all my reviews
Is the music larger than the production? This is a very powerful work.
Almost a horror story but unfortunately the horrible bomb is all too real. The
production by librettist and collaborator Peter Sellars is powerful. The
story is the creation of the first atomic bomb, and its creator Dr
Oppenheimer is the protagonist. Doctor Atomic is must seeing for Gerald Finley
alone. This is an awesome performance. He nails the character perfectly. And
of
course his singing is exemplary as usual. The other singers compliment him
very well.
But the question boils down to the music. Is it more than the production?
It will be interesting to see how it fares with a new production such as
the MET just put on. There are a few arioso sections but not built on melody.
Everything is recitative - perhsps influenced by Monteverdi. The music
serves the text admirably in its frightening noises - especially when evoking
the terror of the bomb. But you certainly won't be humming anything on the
way out. Unlike serialism it is not hard to take. But it is quite dry and I
wonder if the recitative might be better replaced by talking over the
orchestra. It certainly must have been tiring to sing. Help other customers
find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Report this Report this| Permalink
Comment
13 of 20 people found the following review helpful:
Great singing, Beautiful music, horrible filming, November 21, 2008
By Richard Babat - See all my reviews
This production is 95% very, very close-up full face shots. There are no,
zero, full stage shots. Very Occasionally there is a full body shot. There
is absolutely no sense of theater at all.
This opera could have been filmed in an 8 x 12 foot room. No sense of
space exists. DAS BOOT had more wide shots. Even the dance sequences, by famed
choreographer Lucinda Childs, are shown in half body, never in full
ensamble. There were close-ups that showed only an EYE, full screen. The
average
cut away was about every two seconds. The camera never lingered on a singer
for more than a second or two. The fine chorus was shown, guess what, as
only full face individuals. Gerald Finley was excellent, but did we have to
see him in extreme close-up ALL THE TIME. Paul Newman he's not. We have scene
after scene of Kitty Openheimer SLEEPING in close-up. There is even a
close-up of a plastic baby doll.
This Video is a shame. A wonderful performance ruined by totally inept
filming. The video jacket credits the director, Peter Sellers, as the TV
director. He must be incompetent or playing a joke on us.
Wait for the Mets HD filming to become available. Help other customers
find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Report this Report this| Permalink
Comment
3 of 15 people found the following review helpful:
Finley's aria is fantastic, but it's in the wrong opera, November 16, 2008
By R. Hutchinson "autonomeus" (a world ruled by fossil fuels and fossil
minds) - See all my reviews
When a local theater subscribed to the Metropolitan Opera's HD LIVE series
and broadcast DR. ATOMIC on November 8th I decided I shouldn't miss it.
I'm not a fan of Adams, but the subject matter is so important, and it had
been brought to my doorstep...
DR. ATOMIC has its moments. The first act builds up to a tremendous aria,
Gerald Finley singing "Batter My Heart," one of the Holy Sonnets of John
Donne, as the character of Robert Oppenheimer. The first scene is the
assembled throng of Manhattan Project workers. I was decidedly underwhelmed.
The
second scene is a love scene with Oppenheimer and his wife Kitty -- much
better, with Finley in fine form. Then back to the bomb, with the test blast
impending and a rainstorm, building tension. Finally, the Faustian scene
with Oppenheimer singing to God. The problem with this is that Oppenheimer was
Jewish, and not observant. Yes, he did in fact use Donne's sonnet for the
name of the Trinity Test Site in southern New Mexico, but this discrepancy
undercut the power of the most powerful scene in DR. ATOMIC for me.
The second act I found to be poorly conceived. The weather and the delay
in the test, which took place July 16th, 1945, drives the action, which
strikes me as a small and mundane aspect of such a literally earth-shattering
series of events. The best part of Act II is Kitty, who in real life was a
committed leftist and opponent of the Project, and who in the opera
symbolizes the human conscience as well as the archetypal Woman standing
against the
deadly plans of the men, generals and scientists alike. I was not at all
convinced by the addition of a Noble Savage role for the Indian maid
Pasqualita and a gallery of impassive male Indians in full regalia. The ending
is
weak, with a pointed message about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, yes, (148,000
people were killed immediately by the only two atomic bombs ever to have been
used in war, and 340,000 including those killed later by radiation
poisoning and other effects), but not nearly as effective as the ending of Act
I.
Of course the Met's production is not the same original Peter Sellars
staging as in this DVD of the Netherlands Opera. I haven't stressed those
details, only the basic plot elements. Finley continues in his role as
Oppenheimer -- he has sung the part in every production so far, in San
Francisco,
Amsterdam, Chicago and New York.
As far as Adams's position as a leading American composer, I remain
underwhelmed. Minimalism has become merely one element in his eclectic but
tonal
style, now a sort of audience-friendly PoMo Lite, an acceptable badge of
hipness, and Adams continually strives to be a contemporary composer for those
who don't like New Music.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Report this Report this| Permalink
Comments (2)
1 of 5 people found the following review helpful:
Finley alone worth watching, November 12, 2008
By T. Weaver (Clarksburg MD) - See all my reviews
This is an excellant production. If you don't like modern, dissonent
opera, then this might not be for you. The production is powerfully done and
the
singing and symphonic quality top notch. Help other customers find the most
helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Report this Report this| Permalink
Comment
11 of 12 people found the following review helpful:
Is it History or Opera?, November 9, 2008
By David W. Dorn "pfaffendorn" (Mars Hill, NC) - See all my reviews
Thanks for the history lesson, Tom, but Holy Cow! If the only
acknowledgment of the music you heard today is "While the score is certainly
engaging
and momentous at times.." and your best recommendation is to forget the
opera and read a book chronicling the Manhattan Project, why did you spend the
money to go to the opera? Like any theater piece, opera is at its best
dealing with human passions and the conflicts which arise between people in
relationship to each other. Words, music and visuals combine to create a vivid
metaphor for the human condition, and perfect historical accuracy need not
be part of the equation. The hopes and fears of the scientists as they
struggle with creating a device they hope will save lives but may indeed pose
the threat of annihilation; the personality conflicts between two scientists
working toward the same goal while harboring different personal agendas;
the costs that single-minded dedication to an urgent goal may exact on a
precious personal relationship; the contrast between hard concrete left-mind
science and mysterious, numinous native spirituality; and above all, the
struggle of a sensitive and artistic temperament to reconcile his sense of
beauity and love with the monstrosity he has created--these are the business
of opera, and Doctor Atomic is a riveting exploration of those issues.
Adams' music reflects these struggles magnificently, flowing through them
all, from love and passion to lurking menace and fear, like a river. I,
too, was in the theater today for Doctor Atomic, and I was knocked flat by the
electrifying scene at the end of Act I, as Oppenheimer, alone with his
creation as it looms over him, writhes in an agony of conscience over what he
has done. The historical record supports this idea, and you can see it
there on his face in any portrait of the man even if he didn't really stand
there alone in the moonlight. But even if it wasn't real fact, it is a perfect
way for the artist to illustrate one of the major cosmic themes of the
opera and of our day. Any viewer/listener with the equipment to allow the
music, poetry, and images to work their triple magic on one's conscious and
unconscious being would have to be struck dumb by the power of that scene.
This is great theater--cosmic questions made real in the passions of human
beings--so, who cares about history at a moment like that? On that level,
Doctor Atomic is a work of genius which takes one's breath away.
I've read my World War II history as well, and it has enriched my
experience of this opera; for example, I am inspired to revisit the historical
record to see if my memory of the characters of Oppenheimer and Teller should
be adjusted because of the surprisingly different angle on their
personalities and conflicts which the opera presents. But that's only an
interesting
sidelight compared with the overwhelming emotional experience of
surrendering to the sights, sounds and words of great human passions,
illustrated as
only a great opera can do.
If these live transmissions by the Met can help people learn to park their
preconceived ideas at the door for a couple of hours and open themselves
to such powerful experiences, they have done their job. Leave the history
books next to your easy chair for some other cold day in front of the fire.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Report this Report this| Permalink
Comment
11 of 11 people found the following review helpful:
Almost perfect, November 8, 2008
By A. Lupu (Rochester, MN USA) - See all my reviews
The plot is based on the last days of the Manhattan project, but in fact
the greatness of this opera is the portraying of the human struggles of the
people involved in the project. The plot itself is the reason to get into
those very human emotions and struggle, so the full accuracy of the plot
doesn't seem to me of crucial importance. The best music is for those internal
looking moments, with the necessary "actions" to put everything in
perspective (sounds familiar?). Some of the tense moments in the plot are for
music only, masterly composed by John Adams.
I have the feeling the production is over played which sometimes disturbs
and distracts. In addition, some of the close-ups (for the DVD) are
over-dramatic veering the attention from the poetry and the music. The music
and
the lyrics are beautiful and strong enough. It doesn't need over-acting and
distractions like people moving fast on the scene.
The last scene of first act is impressive, in particular when Oppenheimer
silhouette raises his hand and finger to the "Gadget" (God?)... but there
is no finger responding this time.
Remembering that all music (and opera) was once new, this DVD is
recommended for all Opera lovers and enthusiasts.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Report this Report this| Permalink
Comment
12 of 41 people found the following review helpful:
Get the History Straight Please, November 8, 2008
By Tom Ferrell (Vienna, VA USA) - See all my reviews
My wife and I had the opportunity to see this through the Met HD Live
program in November 2008. Having studied the history of the atomic bomb
development extensively as part of a graduate history degree including a week
long
trip to Hiroshima and Nagasaki to the annual anniversary of their
destruction, we were both looking forward to seeing this show. It is always
intereting and enlightening to see a gripping historical story told via a
different medium.
We were both deeply disappointed. While the score is certainly engaging
and momentous at times, the story that Mr. Adams has opted to tell is
extremely one-sided and almost wholesale adopts the new revisionist history
that
many scholars are pushing that paints the United States as aggressor. For
those of you who may have less familiarity with the events in the Spring and
Summer of 1945 in advance of the Japan bombings, some background is
necessary. While initial development of the bomb was started to parry what was
believed to be an active and fast-moving German atomic bomb development effort.
However, it became fairly clear even before the Allies had Germany on the
run that any such bomb effort was small at best and was likely cancelled
due to cost and a belief that such a weapon was simply not feasible. For a
far more engaging artwork that explores the German bomb program, pick up a
copy of Michael Frayn's Copenhagen.
With an investment quickly climbing into the billions, the US decided to
continue with the Manhattan project with hopes that the weapon could be
completed fast enough to bring an end to the War in the Pacific without an
invasion of Japan. It is here where modern historians bifurcate into two main
camps. What is clear is that the war was largely won by the Spring of 45 with
the Japanese on the run, out of resources, and making at least some
overtures for peace through back channels. What is less clear is how serious
such
peace pursuits were as the public face of the Japanese war machine
continued to call for every Japanese to give their life if necessary to
continue
the prosecution of the war. Some historians (e.g., Gar Alperovitz and Peter
Kuznick) have argued that the US pushed ahead with the bomb development
while essentially ignoring the Japanese entreaties for peace. The reasons
given for such an aggressive position range from the need to demonstrate the
bomb as a warning to Russia to simple blatant racism on the part of Truman
and others in his administration toward the Japanese. If one adopts this
view, then it is a short and slippery slope to considering the US decision as
an act of genocide. Proponents of this view downplay the possibility of a
Japanese invasion with the subsequent loss of Allied troups as little more
than US propaganda.
While I personally believe there is reason to question the US actions,
their timing, and the public vs private justifications recorded at the time,
there is also extensive evidence to show that Japan was willing to go on
fighting indefinitely if they were unable to reach acceptable terms of
surrender possibly creating a clear need for some form of invasion. It is this
second view that is absent in John Adam's work. Aside from having various
storytelling elements that seem to make almost no sense to the main theme of
the work, Oppenheimer, the US military, and the US overall are made to look
as though they were hell bent to drop atomic bombs on Japan no matter what.
Art of any form is always subjective, representative of the artist
viewpoint, and open to a variety of interpretations by the audience viewing
the
art. In this case, the artwork purports to tell the story of Robert
Oppenheimer stating clearly and boldly that his is a modern Faust. The analogy
simply does not hold. The history presented is highly skewed. Much of the
imagery and allusion is off base and the texts used to create the libretto
simply
do not work. Save your money on this one. If the topic really interests
you, spend the almost four hours of your life that watching this takes to
instead read Richard Rhodes' Pulitzer Prize-winning book, The Making of the
Atomic Bomb.
Epilogue: A number of individuals have taken issue with my focus on
history and not the artistry, i.e., it's an opera not a history textbook. I
have
added this epilogue to simply note that John Adams goes out of his way to
talk about how he spent significant time determining which historical
documents to include as part of the libretto. My point was/is that his
selections
are highly skewed in my opinion. I did not see the open and purposeful
ambiguity to foster thought on the part of the audience that others claim to
have seen.
**************Access 350+ FREE radio stations anytime from anywhere on the
web. Get the Radio Toolbar!
(http://toolbar.aol.com/aolradio/download.html?ncid=emlcntusdown00000003)
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
