Carmina Burana Reviewers an Analysis

Carmina Burana Reviewers An Analysis of Two Reviews of Carmina Burana from USA and the UK This paper will compare two contemporary reviews of Carl Orff's Carmina Burana, one from the United States and the other from the UK. The reviews differ significantly in tone and style, and suggest quite a bit about the nations in which both were written. In fact, they give two very distinct accounts of the way choral music functions in each particular society. The first reviewer is Janelle Gelfand of the Cincinnati Enquirer.

She begins her review with adulation, praising the performance at Cincinnati's Music Hall in Ohio. Her language is strong, forceful, and passionate as though she were composing in the very thralls of the emotion she felt when attending the "electrifying Carmina Burana." She pulls out every word in the thesaurus to describe the event, often using the same words more than once. In an attempt to sound like a savvy, well-versed theatergoer, she comes off instead as sounding only naive and ill-trained.

Her critique has obviously been shaped by the "thunderous ovations" the show received. "Exhilarating energy," "dramatic performance," "tremendous sweep and detail," "generous dose of humor," "it swaggered," "dramatic pacing," "graced by a splendid cast," "riveting," "stole the show," "powerful and taut," are some of the several phrases with which the review is littered. Rather than say anything of any actual meaning, Gelfand instead employs a handful of catch phrases to induce her readers to think that she has witnessed something powerful.

Whether or not Gelfand is familiar with Orff's oeuvre, the reader is not likely to be able to tell -- much less likely to care. How this performance ranks among others is even less discernable. All the reader is able to tell is how "swept away" by the performance Gelfand was. She displays no credentials that mark her as a severe critic or avid theatergoer -- only trite catch phrases.

What such says about America and its theatergoing practices is this: there is no level of expectation when it comes to the theater. Audiences are either wowed or lost. Subtlety and refinement, depth and character are not commonplaces of the contemporary American theater world. It is all spectacle and jargon and little else. Motley assertions and too-colorful language peppers Gelfand's assessment as is typical in the American media, where reflection is something that takes months, which is far too long to get a review out to the public.

In effect, Gelfand illustrates what is most singular about America: it is hurried, untutored, flagrant, and without reserve -- yet completely willing to praise to the skies even the most banal and trivial undertaking; which means, by reading Gelfand's review, there is no telling whether Cincinnati's performance of Carmina Burana was good or not -- Gelfand herself is hardly likely to have any sense of theatric taste and displays none literately.

On the other hand, there is Guy Dammann of UK's Guardian, reviewing the O2 London production of Orff's Carmina Burana in 2009. Dammann displays all the aristocratic, snobbish, condescending characteristics that one would expect from a literate Englishman who is hard-pressed to find anything that pleases him. Dammann, in fact, represents the exact opposite end of the spectrum to Gelfand.

If Gelfand is American idealism/exuberance run completely amok, Dammann is English propriety and snootiness held so aloft from the common superficialities of common man (which he disdains) that anyone who can possibly relate to his comments is most likely as snooty as he. Such is not to say that Dammann does not know what he is talking about. Not at all -- Dammann has obviously been educated in theater, and gives a refreshing bit of information concerning the history of Orff's Carmina.

His review is fairly objective, discerning, and intelligent. Neither hyper nor boring, Dammann knows what to say and how to say it. If he represents England, one might be compelled to say that between the two countries England has the upper hand with regard to stage drama and classical music. England, in fact, is backed by a tradition that has at heart its own Golden Age of drama -- so it is not likely that such matters are to be taken lightly.

Thus, Dammann displays no lack of sensitivity, and even criticizes the O2's performance for being "so geared to mass spectacle [that] the live theater seemed disconnected and starved of presence." The judgment is sound, and it could easily be made of any.