Campbell Vertesi

I had a very interesting discussion with one of the coaches here recently.  I have always been of the opinion that acting in opera can be - indeed, should be - every bit as nuanced as stage acting.  That is to say, your characters should have all the depth and complexity of a real human being.  I have always placed a special emphasis on subtext in my arias, so that they can be more than just "he's sad".  But this particular coach disagreed.

The argument is that we have many more constraints in opera, which prevent us from taking too much freedom with our characters.  In the first place, the audience generally doesn't speak the language we're singing, so nuance in the text does not get conveyed.  There are also the musical constraints of timing, pitch and duration. Stage actors get more tools than operatic singers do, so they can expect their audiences to pick up on character subtleties and thought much better.

One example is the idea of Carmen, who seems to have no fear whatsoever, laughing in the face of predestined death with her last lines to Don Jose.  I think that something like that would make the scene much more intense, highlighting her acceptance of fate in a scary sort of way.  A character who laughs as she goes to her death would have me on the edge of my seat... if nothing else in fascination at this twisted person.  But according to this argument, opera audiences couldn't get anything that deep.  They'd just wonder why she was laughing, and lose their connection to the opera.

The example that brought the whole discussion up was Colline's "coat" aria from La Boheme.  I see Colline as a guy who uses humor and pseudo-intellectualism as a defense mechanism.  When Mimi enters, he goes from this chatty jokester to dead silent for about 15 minutes, watching everything take place.  When he finally does say something, I don't think he's aware of any of the symbolism of the coat or any of that crap.  I think he's just grasping at straws to try and cope with the reality of the imminent death of a dear friend.  Humor is his defense - he is trying to make a joke at a funeral, because he just doesn't get what to do.  

The piece comes to a climax with this stupid line about the books in his pockets, not because the pockets are of any importance,  but because Colline is struggling to keep this defense up against the weight of the situation.  He gets poco rall and rallentando during that line, until he reaches the words "filosofi e poeti" (philosophers and poets), ostensibly describing the works in the pockets of the coat.  In my interpretation, this is where he finally gets it, and realizes that what he's really doing is singing a funeral for his friend.  After all, he is a philosopher, and Rodolfo the mourning lover is a poet.  The only things Colline can manage to say after that moment are broken "addio"s, in ever descending lines.

I think that this aria is Colline's defense falling apart, as he is forced to come to terms with the reality of Mimi's death.  The text is so straightforward, but it is the subtext that makes the aria so poignant.

Apparently opera audiences can't be expected to pick up on anything so complex as a human being struggling to keep it together, and then falling apart emotionally under the weight of the situation.  I'd like to hear your thoughts...