Page 341 - Weiss, Jernej, ur. 2019. Vloga nacionalnih opernih gledališč v 20. in 21. stoletju - The Role of National Opera Houses in the 20th and 21st Centuries. Koper/Ljubljana: Založba Univerze na Primorskem in Festival Ljubljana. Studia musicologica Labacensia, 3
P. 341
ciril debevec – the first professional opera director in slovenia
of the word,’ this original form seems to me partly too sharp, partly too ab-
stract, and in particular too funny. As for the ‘new meaning of the word,’ it is
almost somewhat too simple.” 20 He emphasized awareness that the opera is
very complex, composed of potentially equivalent articles, firstly the sing-
er and actor in one person, second the orchestra, and third the scenogra-
phy. He did not explain his ideas in detail, but a brief remark indicates that
he gave the singer the most demanding task: he emphasizes spiritual and
musical content, clearly and convincingly gives the sung word and clearly
expresses the character of his role.21 In his commentary, he also noted that
he was aware of the diversity of both media and, consequently, the urgency
for compromise between the original text and his musical adaptation. As
he said, in the role as director of the opera, he gave priority to the musical
score, which was not easy for him to do. Let us remember that he studied at
the renowned Prague Theatre School, where he also studied composition,
whereby he acquired the competencies that nobody had among his prede-
cessors nor contemporary directors of the Ljubljana Drama and Opera. Ex-
ceptions were, of course, the conductors who at the same time directed. De-
bevec was aware of the conundrum when he said:
[...] I fully associate myself with the view that the opera director
must first of all focus on the essence of music and on the musical
design structure. The Bravničar ‘Scandal’ is a kind of ‘Sprechge-
sang-opera’ and would in fact require a new, unique direction. But
this type of direction, I think, is out of my league, at least for now.22
The opera adaptation of Scandal was welcomed by the audience, while
critics challenged the various aspects of the performance. The harshest crit-
ic, Slavko Osterc, wrote among other things: “The performance was careful-
ly prepared, the directing of Ciril Debevec is exemplary.”23 The critic Anton
Ocvirk critiqued Bravničar’s setting Cankar’s work to music as “artfully ir-
relevant, musically helpless, the content of Cankar’s farce infinitely remote
[...]” while labelling Debevec’s directing of Scandal as a bright exception.24
20 Ciril Debevec, »Pet opazk k režiji opere Pohujšanje v dolini šentflorjanski«, Gledališki
list, / “Five Remarks to the direction of the opera Scandal in the St. Florian Valley”,
Theatrical Gazette, 1929/30, No. 15, 83.
21 Ibid.
22 Ibid., 84.
23 Slavko Osterc, »Gledališki pregled«, Ljubljanski zvon / »Theatre Review«, The Ljub
ljana Bell, year 50, No. 6 (1930): 378.
24 Anton Ocvirk, »Ob koncu gledališke sezone«, Ljubljanski zvon / “At the end of the
theatre season”, The Ljubljana Bell, year 50, No. 8 (1930): 486–487.
339
of the word,’ this original form seems to me partly too sharp, partly too ab-
stract, and in particular too funny. As for the ‘new meaning of the word,’ it is
almost somewhat too simple.” 20 He emphasized awareness that the opera is
very complex, composed of potentially equivalent articles, firstly the sing-
er and actor in one person, second the orchestra, and third the scenogra-
phy. He did not explain his ideas in detail, but a brief remark indicates that
he gave the singer the most demanding task: he emphasizes spiritual and
musical content, clearly and convincingly gives the sung word and clearly
expresses the character of his role.21 In his commentary, he also noted that
he was aware of the diversity of both media and, consequently, the urgency
for compromise between the original text and his musical adaptation. As
he said, in the role as director of the opera, he gave priority to the musical
score, which was not easy for him to do. Let us remember that he studied at
the renowned Prague Theatre School, where he also studied composition,
whereby he acquired the competencies that nobody had among his prede-
cessors nor contemporary directors of the Ljubljana Drama and Opera. Ex-
ceptions were, of course, the conductors who at the same time directed. De-
bevec was aware of the conundrum when he said:
[...] I fully associate myself with the view that the opera director
must first of all focus on the essence of music and on the musical
design structure. The Bravničar ‘Scandal’ is a kind of ‘Sprechge-
sang-opera’ and would in fact require a new, unique direction. But
this type of direction, I think, is out of my league, at least for now.22
The opera adaptation of Scandal was welcomed by the audience, while
critics challenged the various aspects of the performance. The harshest crit-
ic, Slavko Osterc, wrote among other things: “The performance was careful-
ly prepared, the directing of Ciril Debevec is exemplary.”23 The critic Anton
Ocvirk critiqued Bravničar’s setting Cankar’s work to music as “artfully ir-
relevant, musically helpless, the content of Cankar’s farce infinitely remote
[...]” while labelling Debevec’s directing of Scandal as a bright exception.24
20 Ciril Debevec, »Pet opazk k režiji opere Pohujšanje v dolini šentflorjanski«, Gledališki
list, / “Five Remarks to the direction of the opera Scandal in the St. Florian Valley”,
Theatrical Gazette, 1929/30, No. 15, 83.
21 Ibid.
22 Ibid., 84.
23 Slavko Osterc, »Gledališki pregled«, Ljubljanski zvon / »Theatre Review«, The Ljub
ljana Bell, year 50, No. 6 (1930): 378.
24 Anton Ocvirk, »Ob koncu gledališke sezone«, Ljubljanski zvon / “At the end of the
theatre season”, The Ljubljana Bell, year 50, No. 8 (1930): 486–487.
339
