Page 344 - 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. 344
vloga nacionalnih opernih gledališč v 20. in 21. stoletju
er psychological justifications” and that at the forefront was staging effect.41
On the contrary, he stated the influences of the new Russian school, head-
ed by Vsevolod Majerhold, and advocated for greater stage dynamics and
the connection of the viewer with the actor and influenced the directions
of Bratko Kreft, Ferdo Delak and Branko Gavella. Ukmar emphasizes that
it had a special…
[...] strong echo to the directing work of Ciril Debevec, who, with his
dynamic nature of constantly fighting the opposites, brought a spe-
cial life into the Opera. The combined mastery of the dramatic and
musical profession, with its rich fantasy, found an expression in a
harmonious connection of classical, romantic, and moderately ex-
pressive elements. In the composition he [...] collected and edited the
whole by logic and necessity of mental experiences ... in a reasona-
bly divided space [...] and [...] in a flexible balance.42
Thus, it seems that Debevec’s directing model best suited Ukmar. As a
trained musicologist and critic of the Ljubljana Opera in the 30’s of the 20th
century, he had firmly developed aesthetic views that were comparable to
Debevec’s.43
In his first season as “boss-director”, Debevec prepared a stylistic vari-
ety of musical works, such as The Queen of Sheba by Karl Goldmark,44 Ju-
les Massenet’s Le Jongleur de Notra-Dame,45 Mozart’s The Marriage of Figa-
ro46 and the novelty of Danilo Švar Kleopatra (premiere May 11th, 1940).47
The latter experienced the greatest media reception and Matija Tomc pre-
sented it in detail in Dom in svet magazine, praising it as versatile and ex-
ceptional, and devoted only a short praise to the direction.48 We find that
critics were lenient of the new leadership, repertoire policies, and perfor-
41 Vilko Ukmar, »Podoba slovenske opere 1919–1939« / ‘’Music theatrical practice of the
Slovene Opera 1919–1939”, Kronika slovenskih mest year 7, No. 3 (1940): 175.
42 Ibid.
43 Vilko Ukmar, Poglavja iz glasbene estetike / Chapters of musical aesthetics (Ljubljana:
Glasbena matica, 2006).
44 Gledališki list / Theatre Gazette, Opera, 1939/40, year 19, No. 1.
45 Gledališki list / Theatre Gazette, Opera, 1939/49, year 19, No. 3.
46 Gledališki list / Theatre Gazette, Opera, 1939/40, year 19, No. 4.
47 Gledališki list / Theatre Gazette, Opera, 1939/40, year 19, No. 14.
48 Matija Tomc, »Gledališče. Dr. Danilo Švara Kleopatra« / “Theatre. Kleopatra by Dr.
Danilo Švar”, Dom in svet, year 52, No. 7 (1940): 429–432.
342
er psychological justifications” and that at the forefront was staging effect.41
On the contrary, he stated the influences of the new Russian school, head-
ed by Vsevolod Majerhold, and advocated for greater stage dynamics and
the connection of the viewer with the actor and influenced the directions
of Bratko Kreft, Ferdo Delak and Branko Gavella. Ukmar emphasizes that
it had a special…
[...] strong echo to the directing work of Ciril Debevec, who, with his
dynamic nature of constantly fighting the opposites, brought a spe-
cial life into the Opera. The combined mastery of the dramatic and
musical profession, with its rich fantasy, found an expression in a
harmonious connection of classical, romantic, and moderately ex-
pressive elements. In the composition he [...] collected and edited the
whole by logic and necessity of mental experiences ... in a reasona-
bly divided space [...] and [...] in a flexible balance.42
Thus, it seems that Debevec’s directing model best suited Ukmar. As a
trained musicologist and critic of the Ljubljana Opera in the 30’s of the 20th
century, he had firmly developed aesthetic views that were comparable to
Debevec’s.43
In his first season as “boss-director”, Debevec prepared a stylistic vari-
ety of musical works, such as The Queen of Sheba by Karl Goldmark,44 Ju-
les Massenet’s Le Jongleur de Notra-Dame,45 Mozart’s The Marriage of Figa-
ro46 and the novelty of Danilo Švar Kleopatra (premiere May 11th, 1940).47
The latter experienced the greatest media reception and Matija Tomc pre-
sented it in detail in Dom in svet magazine, praising it as versatile and ex-
ceptional, and devoted only a short praise to the direction.48 We find that
critics were lenient of the new leadership, repertoire policies, and perfor-
41 Vilko Ukmar, »Podoba slovenske opere 1919–1939« / ‘’Music theatrical practice of the
Slovene Opera 1919–1939”, Kronika slovenskih mest year 7, No. 3 (1940): 175.
42 Ibid.
43 Vilko Ukmar, Poglavja iz glasbene estetike / Chapters of musical aesthetics (Ljubljana:
Glasbena matica, 2006).
44 Gledališki list / Theatre Gazette, Opera, 1939/40, year 19, No. 1.
45 Gledališki list / Theatre Gazette, Opera, 1939/49, year 19, No. 3.
46 Gledališki list / Theatre Gazette, Opera, 1939/40, year 19, No. 4.
47 Gledališki list / Theatre Gazette, Opera, 1939/40, year 19, No. 14.
48 Matija Tomc, »Gledališče. Dr. Danilo Švara Kleopatra« / “Theatre. Kleopatra by Dr.
Danilo Švar”, Dom in svet, year 52, No. 7 (1940): 429–432.
342
