John Adams: Doctor Atomic
|
List Price: Our Price: $27.61 You Save: $12.38 (31%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $26.23 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of John Adams: Doctor Atomic
Movie Review: Some very effective dramatic effects- some confusion.
Summary: 3 Stars
An artistic work like Dr. Atomic is bound to stir up controversy. One of the foremost questions is whether the authors of this opera are intending to influence the public toward a specific opinion about nuclear weapons, or whether it should be regarded solely as a work of art depicting the psychological states of the participants in the first A-bomb test. If they are trying to shape opinion, then I think a valid question would be: Are the arguments presented objectively and contextually, or do they rely on the dramatic nuances of theatrical devices-facial expression, gesture, inflection of the voice? And, of course, the ultimate question regarding the opera, in itself, is whether or not it is successful as art. It seems to me that the question of artistic success might be related to the question of polemical intent. Personally, when I sense that I am being propagandized, it makes me wary of accepting the artistic devices which the artist is using to convey his message. While watching the DVD of the opera, I had the firm impression that this was a very nuanced performance which was intended to cast the motivations for the A-bomb test in a negative light. After watching the movie of the opera, I viewed the interviews with John Adams, who conceived it, and Peter Sellars, who wrote the libretto. Sellars clearly states the activist intention behind this work, as being an effort to make people rethink our policies on the development of nuclear weapons. This was actually a very interesting interview, which I enjoyed watching. He stated quite articulately the anti-war position against such weapons based on the idea that the United States has had an illusion of invulnerability through owning such weapons. This erroneous idea has led to bad policy decisions and ill-advised military intervention causing terrible civilian suffering. He traces these misfortunes back to the initial decision to go ahead with the A-bomb development. OK, but aren't we missing some pieces of the picture? It has been claimed that Japan was willing to fight to the last man, and that an invasion of the Japanese homeland would have potentially caused more loss of life than the A-bombs. Was that an invalid argument? Is it unlikely the Soviet Union would have pursued nuclear weapons even if we had ruled them out? Could it have been a simple matter of just saying NO! to nuclear weapons? I must admit that I don't know the answer, but I highly suspect that the political, strategic, and philosophical sides of this subject are so complex they can't be adequately covered in an entertainment medium - even in a 2 1/2 hour opera. Sellars and Adams must have thought so, too, because they chose to emphasize the human, emotional side of the subject. That is a very valid side, but I think that in introducing so many cultural elements into the presentation, they may have overloaded their presentation with subjectivity to the detriment of a clear, coherent message. The portrayals of Oppenheimer, Teller, and General Groves were interesting character studies, though I suspect the nuance given to Oppenheimer's personality may have been a little overdone toward the manic. However, to my mind, the roles of Kitty Oppenheimer and Pasqualita, the Native American maid, instead of reinforcing the idea of a common humanity, seemed to dilute and confuse the main thrust of the opera. For one thing, they were singing about things that I don't think most of us could comprehend on one hearing without further research. While the poetry quoted by Kitty may have been apropos, it was too image-laden for me to grasp as she sang it. This, along with the chants intoned by Pasqualita in her Earth-Mother persona, may have given a harmony to the tableau to minds greater than mine, but seemed chaotic to me. I certainly wouldn't say that the inputs of Kitty and Pasqualita were irrelevant, but my attention was scattered by trying to relate what they were saying to the the drama of the scientists. Some of the closeups of performers were much too close up, and various orifices and protuberances of their faces actually assumed an alien and distracting aspect. That is not a criticism of the opera as such, but it is quite visible on the DVD. There was an intensity to parts of the film that I found quite compelling, so it was by no means a dud. If you dislike opera to begin with, there's probably nothing about this one that will change your mind. Overall, I would have to say that I enjoyed it more than I disliked it, but found myself being reserved because of what I perceive to be its political agenda. I can't say that politically-inspired art is necessarily a bad thing, but if someone is trying to influence my vote primarily through an appeal to the emotional urgency of an issue, I begin to wonder if I'm getting a fair picture. I think art may sometimes be used as a Trojan Horse to bring ideas into the minds of patrons in a subtle way to undermine established opinion. Sometimes, this may turn out to be a good thing, but I think we need to be aware that we are being massaged. Although I enjoy classical music, I freely admit I'm not qualified to say much about the technical aspects of the production. I can only say that the singing, especially of Finley(Oppenheimer), Fink(Teller), and Rivera(Kitty) sounded amazingly strong, expressive and flawlessly delivered to me. I would have to think that Adams and Sellars would like to reach a larger audience than just opera savants. I am part of that larger, less-musically knowledgeable audience, and these are my impressions, which I don't claim to be representative of anyone else. I think I could have seen four or five stars worth of appreciation for this work if the various parts had been more cohesive, even with my reservations about its ideological intent.Movie Review: Finley's aria is fantastic, but it's in the wrong opera
Summary: 3 Stars
When a local theater subscribed to the Metropolitan Opera's HD LIVE series and broadcast DR. ATOMIC on November 8th, 2008 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 musically and dramatically 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.
Movie Review: John Adams' most listenable opera
Summary: 3 Stars
Adams is generally considered the third in the trivium of successful 'minimalist' composers in America, as he has failed to attract a significant cult following on the scale of either Philip Glass or Steve Reich. This is probably due to the lack of a signature musical style that is immediatley identifiable, which is simultaneously an artistic virtue and a commercial liability. In DOCTOR ATOMIC, Adams has abandoned his usual eliptical sound patterns in favor of a more direct approach that echoes the emphatic percussive idioms of Glass and Reich. This makes for a listening experience that is less complicated that Adams' previous works, but far more compelling. The aria 'Batter my Heart' sung by Oppenheim is the highlight of the work, and clearly owes a debt to the calculated dynamo of Glass pieces like ITAIPU and AKENATEN. This opera represents a departure from dogmatic minimalism, and in that sense reflects the progression of other minimalists who owe their commercial success to their gradual drift towards recycled nineteenth century romanticism. It's what people want to hear.Movie Review: Can't completely recommend it
Summary: 3 Stars
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 all the other singers were extremely good and enjoyable. What ruins it all for me, is the generally ugly, repetitive and dull vocal line. 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.Movie Review: Good, But not good enough.
Summary: 2 Stars
I saw this production after Seeing the Met HD broadcast.
First much of the music is very good, Finley is excellent, but not all.
Secondly the Set and staging are reasonable but not overly compelling.
And as others have said, the filming was not the best.
Wait for the Met broadcast to come out, you won't regret it.