For its entry
into the Paris Opera’s repertoire, Alexander Borodin’s Prince
Igor has been entrusted to
Barrie Kosky the Australian director who also heads the Berlin
Komische Oper. A key figure in contemporary theatre, he discusses the
dramatic and scenic challenges that go hand in hand with staging such
a work.
Prince Igor
is a work that conveys some profound images born of Russian folklore.
How did you tackle that aspect?
It’s a real
challenge staging a Russian opera outside of Russia. Prince
Igor like Boris
Godunov and The
Queen of Spades are works that are
intimately linked to their national culture. Nevertheless, we need to
remember that they are all artists’ interpretations of Russian
history. They are indicative of the way those artists liked to
imagine them on stage and as such have little documentary value. When
working on this particular opera, the first thing we need to take
into account is that French audiences are unfamiliar with the story
of Igor, the historical character. Similarly, all the other
characters have no particular significance for them either. Thus it
was important to present a contemporary story to which audiences
could relate. This transposition meant that they needed to understand
the opera without knowing Russian history and without having to
reference the synopsis. The epic of Prince Igor
and the Russian people needs to be
universal so that audiences in Paris can connect with the themes
raised in the libretto. The music is quintessentially Russian and
obviously the text is in Russian, yet the images presented are
contemporary and refer to different environments which in our
globalised world are familiar to anyone.
Once the epic,
folkloric dimension has been set aside, how do you make theatre with
an opera in which the action is, to say the least, limited?
How do you stage an
unfinished opera which, dramaturgically is built on shaky ground and
whose libretto is not particularly brilliant? I admit that I have a
perverse attraction for those types of challenges which generally
prove to be extremely interesting, especially when the music conveys
such intense emotions. Which is the case here. One of the major
challenges was how to handle the destruction of the city. We know
there’s a war going on and that people are dying but we never see
it. Generally, with operas like Carmen,
Don Giovanni,
and Boris Godunov,
the dramatic impetus is dictated by the characters. Yet here, you
can’t expect anything from them. They come and they go without
really filling the stage. As a result, Igor is hardly ever on stage.
The character with the greatest presence is the Chorus—in other
words, the People. We see them march off to war, engage in
bacchanalian orgies and go to church; we see them lost, taken
prisoner, and in mourning. They are far more three-dimensional than
the principal characters. As such, the People become the dramatic
catalyst of the opera. And by analysing their behaviour, we came to
the following conclusion: today as always, it seems that the great
collective tragedy is the need to bestow power on a single leader.
Prince Igor
is also a work about losing connection with one’s roots and the
feelings generally associated with that, such as nostalgia, the
yearning for an absent loved one, but also, that quintessentially
Homeric difficulty of returning home.
I have always been
interested by the notion of exile and the fact of being uprooted from
one’s culture. It’s an idea that guides my work; perhaps because
of my Jewishness. Perhaps also because my grandparents left Europe
for Australia and I left Australia for Berlin. The biblical image of
exile inherent in the Old Testament is no longer a metaphor that
works just for the Jewish people. We live in an era in which there
have never been as many exiles and refugees as there are today in the
entire history of humanity. But exile is also an integral part of the
human condition. It has been inherent to humanity since the beginning
of time as evidenced by the nomadic tribes of Africa. Cultures are
born out of the displacement of people and their encounters with
other cultures. That is also true for invasions and wars. Yet in
addition to that notion, there is another more important one in
Prince Igor
and that is the solitude of people who are lost and without a home.
How can they survive? The position is similar to that of the Hebrews
in the desert as they searched for a leader. Moses, Jesus, Igor,
Putin, Trump… Behind these individuals there is the basic premise
and the eternal problem that only a man—and not a woman—can save
us. But why do we embrace this ridiculous notion? It could be deduced
that Igor is depicted as a hero. Yet the opera reveals to us a
character who actually did nothing right. He loses his army, he loses
the war, he is taken prisoner, and he loses his city. Everything
leads towards the notion of defeat—personal and collective.
But isn’t that
notion of failure the underlying theme in the second monologue which
is delivered in the final tableau of the production?
Yes, absolutely. The
second monologue deals with the shame associated with failure and the
guilt of a leader who feels compelled to flog himself for having
acted as he did. In this case, we are confronted with a man who has
lost his way and who cannot face his people. It is no longer possible
for him to look them in the eyes. This monologue, which becomes the
core of the final tableau, stirs some particularly strong feelings.
An ashamed man has always seemed more interesting to me than a man
claiming victory.
The second
monologue brings out the bleak and tortured aspect of the character.
But there is also a first monologue from Igor which, in particular,
is haunted by his wife. The idea of heartbreak and separation is no
doubt linked to his exile, but it also evokes the problems he
encounters when he is reunited with Yaroslavna.
The first monologue
is filled with his dreams and visions. He imagines returning to his
homeland and being reunited with his wife. But in the end, the trauma
is such that their reunion cannot lead to a happy ending.
Yaroslavna’s character differs from other historical operas in
which the women are essentially demoted to secondary roles. In this
work, the wife sings more than her husband. She delivers the most
melancholic pages and constitutes the emotional heart of the opera:
her loyalty to her husband, her determination to endure hardship and
cling to life so she can see Igor again gives the audience something
to connect to.
From a formal
point of view, the monologue evokes isolation. Does the Prince’s
inner persona represent a powerful dramatic theme for you?
Indeed, while
Russian operas inure us to long scenes in which the tsars interact
with choruses, Igor is essentially with his wife, the khan or he’s
alone. These then are private scenes. The solitude of that man and
his questions weigh heavily. Right until the end of the work, for
Igor it’s all about projection. What will he be able to do once he
returns home? His future remains hanging in the balance.