CommentApril08 - Page: 1 of 1

Hailed as an architectural wonder of the world when it was first built in 1973 and denominated as a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 2008, the 1,547-seat Sydney Opera House has become something of a sore spot for opera goers because, well, it turns out this expressionistic architectural wonder has some Opera Australia fans wondering just who thought the building would serve as a suitable opera house in the first place.

As it turns out the disappointment is as confounding as its architecture, and has some people down under fuming and fighting over what to do about it. The Danish architect and designer Joern Utzon, to borrow a phrase, may have performed a successful operation when he conceived something unique and sold the plan to the New South Wales Labor government on the idea, but the patient died in the end. As an opera house it has its shortfalls.

Visually stunning, it may be, but suitable for live performance and opera, in particular, Opera Australia begs to differ. A new 1,800-seat opera house is being considered – a $400 million investment to be specific. To build or not to build is not the question; rather, the controversy swirls around, where to build.

In the competition for beauty and originality someone forgot to remind the architect that functionality doesn’t always follow form, and that if you build a performing arts center, the first objective should be to build it for what its use will be, not with an eye toward awards for uniqueness and design.

Under control of the New South Wales Ministry of the Arts, debate is now raging between those who want to build a new opera house, a more conventional one to sit beside the current structure, near the botanical gardens, and those who, while they don't objcte to a new building, do quarrel with putting it near the present monument. Peservationists aren't happy. “Go ahead and build a new opera house, if you want, but find another location,” they insist. “Just don’t put it near this award winning national monument.”

Indeed, the Sydney Opera House is a national monument, of sorts – a tribute to ego, we think, more than the arts it’s supposed to serve. The new structure, proposed by Ken Wooley, has been criticized as “an ungainly and all too proximate appendage to the great composition.” It is, critics say, an auditorium, for Pete’s sake, an auditorium of all things, they argue.

And so it boils down to this: critics of locating the new structure near the old argue that an opera house ought not be held captive to the wishes of opera enthusiasts. If the new building looks too traditional, they say, it won't fit. A structure should reflect what architects think is aproppriate. On the other side, Opera Australia and its allies argue that while the original building is a beautiful monument, its use an an “opera house” is – well, not very good at all. Shouldn’t an opera house be suitable for opera?

It’s kind of like composers who write scores that lack musicality and melody. When composition disintigrates to this level, you end up with little more than notes on paper, something anybody can write. That’s how we see this debate. If you build an opera house, just like if you write a new score for an opera, isn’t it important that form suit functionality, rather than the other way around. But then, had Utzon done that he might not have won all those haute couture awards.

As for the price tag to taxpayers, well, it's only money, right?

PBS’s, “Great Performances” recently aired the Met’s production of Englebert Humperdinck’s “Hansel and Gretel” and, as it has for other performances, the Met set the bar exceedingly high for camerawork, sound and overall production value. This is the same version shown in theaters, and it was magnificent in both venues.

The “behind-the-scenes” glimpses that are now a part of the “live performance” experience are especially interesting and informative and provide the viewing audience with something not even Met attendees see when at live shows. We happened to be at this particular performance and found the wide-screen treatment given it on television to be thoroughly satisfying. Truth be known though, the first

act’s kitchen scene, where the set was raised off the stage and built into a black backdrop, giving it all a 3D appearance, while impressive on screen, lacked the impact the scene had on the actual stage. It was the first time I saw this technique used as such, and it was a real creative attention-getter.

It’s smart of the Met, and other companies that can afford it, to update the inventory of opera favorites with new productions such as this.

“Romeo et Juliette,” another new production staring Roberto Alagna and Anna Netrebko is scheduled next for “Great Performances” and is going to be another audience pleaser. We attended and reviewed this show at the Met, and look forward to viewing it on “Great Performances,” next.