Mozart’s
“Idomeneo”: The Show Goes on in Berlin
…
By Dr. Khan Dawood
L. Khan
Chicago, IL
The show goes on, because someone
said the show ‘must’ go on…
Whether the cartoons in a Belgian newspaper, or
the Pope’s comments and apologies, or Mozart’s
opera Idomeneo, you see the same controversy:
Freedom of speech and its responsibility vs religious
provocations and reactions.
For some reason, it has come to this: the best
way to test and exercise the right to freedom
of speech is to intentionally offend the sensibilities
of a religious group. And, ‘self-censorship’
has suddenly become a risk compromising the right
to free speech, a sign of fear not the responsibility
that accompanies free speech, a danger, a ‘dirty’
word – in the eyes of some.
Now it’s over a version of Mozart’s
225-year old opera, ‘Idomeneo’ (or,
‘Idomeneo , re di Creta ossia Ilia e Idamantes’,
in full) -- an Italian libretto, adapted by Giambattista
Varesco from a French text. Since its first performance
in 1781, in Munich, it has been presented many,
many times by many conductors, all around the
world. So, what’s the problem with its scheduled
performance at Berlin ’s Deutsche Oper this
November? Why was it canceled and re-instated
all within a week amid such widely debated controversy,
when the same version was performed three years
ago (in 2003).
Three years ago, it was performed over some Christian
and Muslim non-violent objections. This time,
it seems there was an anonymous threat in August,
which the Security police determined posed an
“incalculable security risk,” because
of which “disturbances could not be ruled
out.”
The original opera story goes like this: After
the Trojan war, the victors (including Idomeneus,
the King of Crete) are returning by sea, and a
violent storm leaves the king ship-wrecked. His
life is spared because the king prayed to the
god of sea (Neptune in Roman mythology; Poseidon,
the Greek equivalent), but Neptune has a condition
that the king sacrifice the first person he meets
on the shore.
It so happens that this person is none other than
his own son, Idamantes. Idomeneus tells nothing
about the vow he made to Neptune (Roman god sea,
horses and earthquakes; Poseidon, its Greek equivalent),
but thought that if he could send his son off
the island (along with his love, Elektra), he
might escape from having to fulfill his vow to
Neptune. But a violent storm (Neptune ’s
wrath) threatens the island, and prevents their
departure.
The High Priest of the land demands the king to
name the person to be sacrificed to stem the disastrous
storm; the king names his son who, after slaying
the sea-monster successfully, realizes that his
father was trying to shield him from his fate,
an act of love toward him (rather than hate),
and offers himself for the sacrifice. Suddenly
Ilia (one of the Trojan captured Idamantes had
set free) who is in love with him, presents herself
to replace Idamantes. The High priest accepts
Ilia, but before the axe falls on her, Neptune’s
voice is heard declaring 'love has triumphed'.
The voice demands that Idomeneus hand over the
throne to his son, which he does to appease Neptune.
He blesses the marriage of the new King, Idamantes,
and his bride-queen, Ilia, to the joy of everyone
(except Elektra).
The Mozart original has NOTHING to do with Prophet
Mohammed, Islam or Muslims; they aren’t
even mentioned there. Neither Mozart nor his ‘original’
opera are even in question here !!
Rather, it is Hans Neuenfels, the show’s
director, who changed the ending of the original
Mozart. In the altered version, Neuenfels has
Idomeneo staggering onto the stages with severed
heads of Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha and Neptune,
and placing them on the chairs, as an off-stage
voice booms that ‘the god is dead’
(INSTEAD of ‘love has triumphed’,
as in the original). This is supposed to be personal
statement by the director, the 65-year-old Neuenfels,
who is described by Andre Kraft (of Konische Oper,
a more adventurous opera house) as “a secularist
who does not believe religion solves the problems
of the world,” reflecting the history of
conflicts caused by religion. Neuenfels believes,
according to his attorney, Peter Raue, that “all
the founders of religions were figures that didn’t
bring peace to the world.”
All this would be protected under Neuenfels’
freedom of speech, but did he have to hijack and
corrupt Mozart’s ‘Idomeneo’
to deliver it? Even allowing for the artistic
license, one couldn’t miss his naiveté
in altering Mozart in such an outrageously subversive
manner to express his personal thought. Other
than Neptune/Poseidon flirting with human lives
and his vengeful extraction of vows, no one else
was relevant to the opera. Bringing up Jesus,
Mohammed and Buddha was nothing but an intended
provocation, driven by the director’s personal
religio-political belief. What is vigorously supported
is such gratuitous violation of Mozart and his
music by a music director.
Based on security concerns, it seems Kirsten Harms,
the Company director since 2004, asked Neuenfels,
early in September, about the possibility of deleting
the scene, but he declined. Neuenfels’ attorney,
Peter Raue, acknowledges that cancellation was
discussed but not changing or deleting the scene
which he said, “You couldn’t change
it; it is part of the story.” Ironically,
Neuenfels felt not only perfectly comfortable
in changing Mozart but also had such wide support
for his action!
In Neuenfels’ Idomeneo, Moses’ head
was much too conspicuous by absence: Moses, the
founding father of Judaism and a Prophet in Islam
(equal in status with his descendants, Mohammed
and Jesus)! If religion-induced conflicts were
Neuensfels’ real theme, Judaism should have
had a place because it has certainly been in the
middle of many conflicts for centuries. Absence
of Moses there was probably because of strict
laws against any anti-semitic expression in post-war
Germany (though unfortunately, NO such constitutional
protection is extended to Muslims).
Religion is a deeply personal preference. Deliberate
acts that ridicule or insult one’s preference
are a form of disrespect of one’s right
to any faith and its free practice with equal
protection. This applies to equally such acts
by any individual group or person, including Muslims
attacking other faiths.
Extremism in any religion, including in Islam,
is a fringe element – does NOT, can NOT,
represent the great majority of the believers.
Ignoring this basic fact creates and exacerbates
the problems -- but is NO way to try to resolve
them!
A simple analogy comes to mind: No mother, for
instance, would like to hear anyone tell her that
her baby is NOT as beautiful as (or uglier than)
someone else’s. This is an uncouth, uncivilized
provocation. Some may ignore it (quite magnanimously),
but I doubt that it’d be a universal reaction
in a Muslim, Hindu, Jewish or a Christian mother,
in the US, UK, Germany, Israel, China, Japan or
anywhere else in the world.
Try it, and see the results!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
