Learn more Shop now Learn more Shop now Shop now Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Learn more Shop Fire Shop Kindle Worried Blues Shop now Fitbit

Customer reviews

5.0 out of 5 stars
5
5.0 out of 5 stars
5 star
5
4 star
0
3 star
0
2 star
0
1 star
0
Format: Audio CD|Change
Price:£38.01+ £1.26 shipping

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

on 4 August 2016
Benjamin Britten transforms the slightly Gothic ghost story by Henry James into a modern story having to do with children and their drama of being children in the hands of adults who do not understand their psychology. Obviously Benjamin Britten understood children a lot more than Henry James. Yet this modernization has limits and Benjamin Britten knows it since with his librettist, Myfanwy Piper, he nearly erases the Indian connection of the parents of the children and he presents the uncle at first as a “guardian” and “only relative” and it is incidentally that Miles and later the Governess will call him, each of them two once, the “uncle”. In fact the opera in the prologue insists on the description of this man as being “a young man, bold, offhand and gay . . . he, so gallant and handsome, so deep in the busy world . . .” This erases too the traumas of these children that were present though mostly unused in Henry James. We thus move from two children who have been traumatized by life and uprooted several times in the last two years of their young life (6 to 8 for Flora and 8 to 10 for Miles) to a more common story of two children in the hands of some supposedly professional employees in the upper classes where parents do not spend much time with their children.

The second remark I want to make here is that the couple Miss Jessel and Peter Quint is less dramatic than in Henry James, at least in their past. Miss Jessel has a duet scene with Peter Quint in which she levels her accusations at Peter Quint from the past, that he had seduced her and then rejected her. It is not a scandal like in Henry James’ story but it is a superficial and opportunistic affair at least on Peter Quint’s side. The real criticism that comes from Mrs. Grose is the fact that Peter Quint does not hold is subservient and inferior position but he is “free” with everyone, in other words he refuses the traditional social segregation that was the rule in such big English estates. This is a great modernization of Peter Quint which then changes the relation with the children, and particularly with Miles. Peter Quint clearly says he is looking for a friend. The description he gives of it in the first scene of the second act cannot fit with a child: it is a “he” but that “he” has to be an adult. Miles can only be then a child and cannot be that friend.

“I seek a friend…
Obedient to follow where I lead,
Slick as a juggler’s mate to catch my thought,
Proud, curious, agile, he shall feed
My mounting power.
Then to his bright subservience I’ll expound
The desperate passions of a haunted heart,
And in that hour
‘The ceremony of innocence is drowned.’”

That last sentence is going to be the burden (two meanings actually: repeated sentence in a song and load) of the duet with Miss Jessel. But Miss Jessel is not looking for a friend but “a soul to share my woe.” And what she says is quite clear:

“I too must have a soul to share my woe
Despised, betrayed, unwanted she must go
Forever to my joyless spirit bound.
‘The ceremony of innocence is drowned.’”

It is quite obvious that does not apply to children, both Flora and Miles. Both are too young to be such confidants or friends or souls to share woes. That’s what the original recording with Peter Pears captures better than the more recent recording directed by Daniel Harding. It all revolves around the last sentence uttered by Miles: “Peter Quint, you devil!” as a friendly challenge from Miles who is going to let himself die to go back to Peter Quint and thus trick and trap the Governess with his own death, and the understanding he got with him when sung by Peter Pears and he does what he is required to do, but as a hostile accusation when sung by Ian Bostridge under the direction of Daniel Harding, but then why does he throws himself in the Governess’s arms and dies?

But a musical choice by Benjamin Britten changes the meaning of the whole tale. He decides to have four sopranos for the four women and these four sopranos are very close in range. In fact only Peter Quint is different since he is a tenor, and thanksfully Miles is also captured as different not because of his range since in both recording he is a male treble, as they say today, hence in the same range as sopranos, but in both cases they are males and the harmonics of their voices are male and those of a young boy who still has his treble voice, maybe a future countertenor. Only Quint and Miles stand out of the rather homogeneous soprano range of the four women. They are not exactly the same since they are human but when they sing one on top of the other, and up (to three at the same time, you cannot differentiate them, at least not easily. This choice is a choice since he could easily have had four female singers with slightly different ranges from mezzo-soprano to alto and soprano. He did not because he wanted it like that so that when the various female voices are mixed you understand Benjamin Britten rewrote the story as a story of women confronted to a world of men.

And this world of women has two dimensions: one towards Peter Quint and the other towards Miles. The guardian is more or less on the side of Quint since he is his master but also he is an adult, whereas Miles is a child. Three women, Miss Jessel, Mrs. Grose and Flora are on the passive side of this composite woman whereas the unnamed Governess is on the active side of this composite woman. The passive side accepts its fate, social position, and even victimization to the point of Mrs. Grose becoming the protector of Flora when victimized by the Governess, and she takes the girl away from the Governess. This Governess becomes the torturer, the dominator, the controller, in fact the power and control freak of the story. She fails to impose her authority onto Flora who rebels and is taken away by Mrs. Grose. But she succeeds in a way with Miles since she brings him to the point where he will reject his connection to Peter Quint but this subservient submission will cost him his own life, as an escape in Peter Pears’ rendering and as a victim of the ghost Peter Quint in Ian Bostridge’s rendering. I personally think the original recording with Peter Pears if better.

To do this I am going to first analyze the description Peter Quint gives of himself as for his connection with Miles and children in general. Then I will consider the three songs the children introduce in the opera. Finally I will wonder what the pentacle symbolism is I will point out in the opera, corresponding to the meaning of Quint (five or fifth, like Carolus Quintus, in Latin, Charles Quint, in French, or Charles the Fifth, in English).

QUINT (unseen)
Miles! [eight times]
The lights fade in on the front of the house and the
tower. Quint is on the tower, Miles in the garden
below him, in his nightgown.
MILES
I’m here, oh, I’m here!
QUINT
I’m all things strange and bold,
The riderless horse
Snorting, stamping [twice] on the hard sea sand,
The hero-highwayman plundering [thrice] the land.
I am King Midas with gold in his hand.
MILES
Gold, oh yes, gold!
QUINT
I am the smooth world’s double face,
Mercury [thrice]’s heels
Feathered with mischief and a god’s deceit.
The brittle blandishment of counterfeit.
In me secrets, half-formed desires meet.
MILES
Secrets, oh secrets!
QUINT
I am the hidden life that stirs
When the candle is out;
Upstairs and down, the footsteps barely heard.
The unknown gesture, the soft, persistent word,
The long sighing flight of the night-winged bird.
MILES
Bird!
QUINT
Miles!
MILES
I’m listening!
QUINT
Miles!
MILES
I’m here!
QUINT
Miles! [twice, which makes twelve with the eight from the beginning]

This scene has a mirror-like structure: Quint’s eightfold call for Miles, Miles’ double answer “I’m here,” then at the end in reverse order Miles’ assertion “I’m here” only once and Quint’s double call for Miles. That structure makes the exchange absolutely self-contained. Quint describes himself in three stanzas that tell Miles what he is bringing to him and the mesmerized if not more response from Miles. First, strange adventurers and plundering for gold and one reference to King Midas who is remembered by any kid who has a classical education that includes Latin and Greek mythology for his ability to turn everything he touched into gold.. And Miles brings the magic word “gold” up to three repetitions. Note here we are dealing with this number three as being a reference to the Christian Trinity, but it is also one basic element in all children’s tales: repeating three times one phrase may bring some magic and often catastrophic event. Think of “Bloody Mary” or “Beetlejuice.” Though five is also important since it is a pentacle, hence a diabolical symbol and here you can think of “Candyman.” What ten year old boy would not be attracted by adventure and gold.

Second, Mercury and all possible lies and treachery, double-face reality, all that is black and white at the same time, good and evil, sweet and sour, etc. Here again a ten year old boy enters the age when he knows things are not all what they look like, that there are opposed elements and that very often these opposed elements are merged into Janus-like beings. And the magic word here is “secrets” that Miles brings to three repetitions again.

Third, the night and the beings of the night, the creatures of the dark, those mysterious and frighteningly attractive birds of the night like bats of course and all they transport in our imagination: they can fly in pitch dark night, they can find their way without using their eyes but ultrasounds, they can get entangled in your hair and they represent an attractive but dangerous could we say friend? And this time Quint’s single “bird” is repeated only once by Miles. He is hypnotized, which does not mean necessarily unconscious, etc. In fact he is only mesmerized. Of course an adult can use this easy fascination in a child, a boy, to lead him to something wrong. But Quint does not do that. There is no real element that tells us without any doubt that the relation of Miles with Quint was anything more than this mesmerized imagination any ten year old child has.

The opera does not really insist on the fact Quint is a way for Miles to find a replacement for his dead father, but at the same time it is obvious when he tells the governess later on that he wants to go back to school to be with his “own kind.” He needs a male figure to find his balance in this world and that’s exactly what Quint gives him and what the Governess will take away, what he builds in his mind with the memory of Quint and that the Governess will pervert and take away.

Miss Jessel is less important though she was a substitute mother figure for Flora who is younger and confronted to two female governesses who seem to compete for control, with a third woman in reserve in the back, Mrs. Grose. And Flora will naturally choose the living one who is not a member of the competing pair. There is a lot less drama with Flora, even if Henry James in the original overdevelops the situation. Benjamin Britten reduces it to what it is for an eight year old girl: a twist in the fabric with an easy solution in store for her.

If we understand Quint’s role this way, then we can proceed. Note Benjamin Britten probably experienced this situation very often since he worked in his life a lot with groups of young boys, often, if not most of the time, under puberty like Miles. And this experience made him sensitive to Miles’ situation and dilemma.

The three songs added by Benjamin Britten, along with the Latin lesson, are very significant and rich in meaning. Note once again they are three. […]

The full critique is more than 6,000 words and you can find it at the following address:
The Turn of the Screw, from James to Britten https://www.academia.edu/s/6394c1fda3 https://www.academia.edu/27527052/The_Turn_of_the_Screw_from_James_to_Britten

Presentation of the discussion

I have to deliver a full article in December on the figure of the stranger in Benjamin Britten's operas. I have listed 21 works in that field and I still have six to go. The Turn of the Screw is particularly important because of the career the opera has had on operatic stages in the world. It is also crucial because more than with any other work this one has brought a wide - and wild - critical approach of Benjamin Britten's sexual orientation which is not at stake in this opera the way I read it, within the others like The Little Sweep that also deals with children in an upper class family. It is this way I would like to submit to your discussion and I am quite open to all ideas though it is quite clear that I will not discuss in my article the sexual orientation of the composer.

Abstract:

The following comparison of Henry James’ The Turn of the Screw and Benjamin Britten’s adaptation of this novella to the operatic stage reveals there are two oceans that are crossed: the Atlantic Ocean and the ocean of time. In spite of his life spent between the USA where he was born and where he had brother, sister, father and mother, Henry James is not English at all. This ghost story is typically American and never reaches the Gothic level British stories construct or the ironic if not sarcastic level of Oscar Wilde. It is also the time of the great debunkers of ghost stories known as Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson who do not believe in ghosts but do believe in criminals and murderers and know from experience that ghosts are a good cover up for a crime, still used in many TV series.

On the other side Benjamin Britten is British to the core and ghosts cannot be ghosts because the ocean of time has been crossed along with two world wars, the two successive births of globalization. We have more or less abandoned the soul in psychiatry and we have vastly replaced it with the mind and the great masters of the mind in 1955 were Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, Jacques Lacan already and emerging fast, but not yet Michel Foucault. Each one of these set the mind in one special place of the body. For Freud the mind is in emotions and impulses. For Jung the mind is heritage from the old culture we receive with our milk after birth. For Jacques Lacan it is in the conflict and construct of two essential dimensions: the basic physiological body and the concept of authority, both in their conflict and cooperation constructing a superego he called the Phallus. Michel Foucault sets the mind at the level of the consciousness of one’s sexual apparatus, in many ways like Wilhelm Reich but with a mental dimension that Wilhelm Reich never reached, tied up and locked up in the sexual drives, both penile and anal, or vaginal and anal.

But, and that’s my main point, Benjamin Britten moves away from the ghosts to deal with mental memories or constructs that replace the parents these children do not have any more, but he refuses the innuendo Henry James invested in his novella all the time in the form of extreme sexual obsession in the nameless Governess. He brings the kids back to their ages, eight and ten, and at ten a boy needs a male model and not a male sexual partner. This model is a father substitute when the father is absent or a father extension that brings into the mental father of the boy new elements to build his superego, or Phallus to use Lacan’s concept.

And Benjamin Britten shows his deep consciousness that with any maternal figure in that situation who would be too possessive and in this particular case a power and control (sexual) freak, the boy might be mentally destroyed to the point of desiring to get out of this world back into the world where his mental model is living, since Quint is dead and not dead at the same time. Simultaneously that boy, in the most innocent way, will punish the maternal substitute who dared push him into non-existence by dying in her arms, in her lap, his big death punishing the mother-torturer-executioner who dared provoke some ripples in the field of his still unawake little death without understanding that you cannot play with that impulse even with a boy of ten without running the risk of destroying him because it is castrating if you frustrate the dim satisfaction of it and traumatic if an adult takes advantage of it to satisfy his or in this case her phantasms.

This is part of a longer study due in December on the figure of the stranger in Benjamin Britten’s operas, still six to go out of twenty-one.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 6 January 2016
Having seen an electric performance of The Turn of the Screw, at Snape Maltings in Suffolk, I decided to buy this highly recommended version to listen to it again at home. What a performance! And such a vivd recording.
0Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
A good many years ago I attended a performance of The Turn of the Screw with Pears as Quint. Enough recollection stays with me to put Bostridge into some sort of context, and the general quality of the rest of that staging was nowhere near in the class of what we have here. I also had the opportunity to hear Daniel Harding conduct a concert of standard fare by Wagner, Mahler and Beethoven in Berlin just under a year ago, and this set reinforces what I suspected at that time, namely that great things might be expected of Harding were he given a bigger challenge.
This performance is nothing short of electrifying so far as I'm concerned. Harding's very thrusting tempi are to my own taste, as the plot of this sinister and ambiguous story tumbles headlong through fear, panic and nightmare. Neither Bostridge as Quint nor Vivian Tierney as Miss Jessel try to sing in 'haunted-house' voices, nor should they in my opinion. In life both had obviously exercised personal human magnetism, however twisted or perverted Quint's personality might have been. Britten himself handles the sinister dimension through his vocal line and his orchestration, and he does not overdo it. Many years earlier Schubert had the sense and insight not to set the speeches of Goethe's Erlking to spooky music whereas Loewe did not, and interpreters should not try to force the issue here either. In any case no composer would give a bogeyman part to a tenor. Really this point is part and parcel of how one reads the story as a whole. Are Quint and Miss Jessel 'real' in the sense that you or I might have seen or heard them if we had turned up on the scene collecting for charity or in some such totally uninvolved capacity? The more 'real' they are in that sense the less they should be acted as fairground bogeys - the whole meaning of this story depends on the grip that Quint and Jessel retain on the children from the other side, and they gained that grip in the first place through being attractive human personalities in some sense. James quite explicitly refused to come off the fence as regards this, and just as explicitly said that it was for us to do our best with the question. I don't even believe that the admirable libretto by Myfanwy Piper comes off the fence either (nor should it), despite putting utterances into the mouths of the two and even giving them a ghostly dialogue - this could be perfectly well explained as dramatic licence, with the dead talking through their interaction in life as they might have been supposed to do while they still saw the sunlight. As for the rest, the Governess is a young, inexperienced and presumably nubile woman, Mrs Grose is an impressionable old biddy, and Miles is a boy on the verge of puberty, the very age most associated with recorded cases of poltergeists, telekinetic manifestations and other such problematical occurrences. What seems clear enough is that it was certainly not all just imagination or 'dreaming'. At the very least there was some kind of 'atmosphere' around the house of Bly, and I myself countenance no explanation that removes this great tale from the category of 'ghost story'.
One can nitpick in various ways if one wants to, but I don't given that I side with the production in respect of the major points of issue. Jane Henschel's voice is probably more suggestive of the Royal College of Music than of a simple uneducated countrywoman, but what really made a big impression on me was how successfully this production dealt with the practical problem of a 2-hour-plus music-drama in which there is only one resonant male voice, and that in a comparatively brief part. The fast underlying pulse contributes a lot to this particular success, I don't for a moment doubt. The youngsters do very well indeed, the orchestra, who I understand to be a handpicked group, perform quite brilliantly in a dazzlingly-written score, and the recording does them all justice.
The liner note is far better than many, but it irritated me a little through its pretentious tone. The material on the music itself is more what a BMus student might write to impress examiners rather than my idea of something that gives illumination to the listener. As regards the background, it is really quite insightful here and there despite a certain amount of psychobabble ('...a knowing innocent caught between a threatening lover and a stifling mother-figure is perhaps too down to earth...and ultimately too reductive in general') and sociobabble ('...he is at another level equally preoccupied with the issues of social control and oppression resulting from the imposition of sexuality as a controlling force in modern society - issues which are no less social for being presented in this oblique guise'). Where it does seem to me acute and to the point is in recognising the effects of a culture that met even the normal processes of sexuality with repression and with denial. That this must have been particularly stressful and confusing for a composer whose own inclinations were literally a crime if acted on in his day seems only too easy to imagine. That the tensions thus engendered were a powerful stimulus to his genius I do not doubt either, and his pain is our gain.
0Comment| 12 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 6 September 2016
Very good.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 31 January 2016
great
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse



Need customer service? Click here