Are international co-productions good for opera?

By John La Bouchardière, 8 June 2015

Tony Baker, Lynn Binstock, David Edwards, Antony Feeny, Manuel Fjarto, Irene Ros, Jane-Eve Straughton

The use of co-productions between opera houses across different parts of the world is claimed to be a way to pool companies’ resources and save money. However, is a consequence of this practice that such productions are likely to communicate less effectively with the audience of any single theatre because they are trying to reach too many different audiences at the same time and because taste varies so greatly across the world?

Is opera – already considered exotic by many – disadvantaged by its being presented in production styles that feel foreign to the public? Or is the internationalism of opera something to be celebrated for narrowing national divisions.

There was discussion about the new opera house in Oslo, made possible by Norway’s economic surplus and apparently supported by a popular desire for national recognition on the international stage. By contrast, the increased use of international artists, unfamiliar but internationally accepted working practices and the presentation of productions and aesthetics from other parts of the world seems to have been unpopular.

Would opera have a better chance of convincing a wider public it if were ‘of the people, by the people and for the people’? Or would that apply less well in international and culturally diverse cities such as London and New York? Should some houses be more national than international and, if so, should some only engage in international co-productions with caution? Is it possible for a company to have a clear identity if its productions are aimed at the audiences of others’?

The claim that co-productions actually save money was challenged and there was a consensus that detailed analysis of the economic benefits would be helpful. The costs incurred by a co-producing partner receiving a production were thought to be potentially substantial (on top of the original investment) because of the alterations to the set and costumes that are often necessary, in addition to costs of transporting tonnes of scenery around the world. Also, technology mismatches between theatres can give rise to additional labour costs: particular reference was made to the need for overnight loading of sets from shows in rep at ENO into lorries because, unlike productions created for the house, these sets could not be stored in the Coliseum’s limited wing space; the significant challenge of bringing productions from the stagione system into rep was also raised. It was noted that companies sometimes write off their investments in co-productions because they don’t like the result.

It was agreed that audiences are not always well served by productions designed for other theatres because of the differing sightlines, which can be particularly detrimental to the experience of people sitting in cheaper seats and is a common cause of complaint.

On top of concern that the styles of international productions might not be as appealing to a public as those aimed at only one local audience, there was worry that productions themselves could be compromised by having too many paymasters, and that this may result in an unchallenged homogeneity of style, where designs are preferred for seeming ‘all things to all men’ while risking being less to any of them.

A significant result of intendants’ growing preference for multiple co-productions is that fewer new productions are actually commissioned (on top of already reduced activity in the recent economic climate) and that these tend to be created by the same handful of production teams over and over again, which substantially reduces opportunities for other directors and designers. This is a potential time bomb, suffocating the art form and preventing a natural influx of fresh ideas and approaches, as well as costing theatres more in elevated artists’ fees.

It was pointed out that these highly experienced teams could provide a sense of security to opera managements because the results may be more reliable and predictable, reducing the risks of mounting a production in the first place. Contrast was made with the practice of renting productions, in which case companies are able to choose work that has been created and to make informed decisions about compatibility, assessing productions on actual merit and without risking any upfront investment. On the other hand, rented productions might be less well suited to being mounted on other stages because their additional parameters would not have been considered during the design process.

It was widely agreed that co-productions, often in the hands of well known teams, may be the only way for companies to afford to risk creating productions of new and unknown repertoire but that, otherwise, they were probably not good for opera because the financial savings, such as they may be, incur losses elsewhere.

Tags:

risk, opera, co-productions, national, National, International, Opera, Risk, ENO, international