Dr. Atomic

What a dud. If you are going to watch Dr. Atomic, do so because you have an interest in the Manhattan Project; do not watch Dr. Atomic because you had the notion that the visuals were going to blow you away. Yes, certain theatre visual aids were eye opening, like the portrait based cubicle set, but the ending was far too disappointing to justify the hype that is built up leading to the A-bomb explosion.

I can not identify Dr. Atomic’s saving grace, mostly because it has none. The libretto put me to sleep – I missed a quarter of the first act. I am not belittling the history behind the libretto, don’t misunderstand me, but the appeal this piece put forth was inadequate. Much of Oppenheimer’s private life was dragged on. Not until the end of the second act did my interest perk up – it was A-bomb testing time. Even then, the libretto held no fascination to me. A sincere interest in the Project will be your caffeine for the evening.

In addition, much of the singing was very flat. My ears did not agree with John Adam’s vision. His compilation spanned the course of three hours – it was three hours of singing that went all over the place; there was no drama in the music, no “umph” whatsoever. Sound effects were supposed to make up for the three hours, and that too, fell short. My ears were hit at the end with a tremendously loud hum that I associated with the atomic bomb. And that was it. I expected something more from the explosion, like a real explosion for example. Loud humming thrown in with a flash consisted of the A-bomb. What a dud, really.

Being able to hear exactly what the singers were saying while sitting in the back is no easy feat; enunciation was surperb, the singing was not. Going to the opera because of great enunciation is not a good reason unfortunately.

Trying to keep a positive attitude about the upcoming opera, as I walked into the Metropolitan Opera my perspective drastically changed.  Earlier in the week, I was actually looking forward to “Doctor Atomic” since it was based on a topic I was greatly interested in, the atomic bomb.  One thing I was not looking forward to was the opera style singing that was to be expected in the performance.  When I think of opera, I imagine heavy-set opera singers singing so loud that it shatters wine glasses and audience members’ eyeglasses.  This was the way it was in the old days, opera singers were usually heavy men and women because they were the only singers capable of hitting the loudest notes.   I was pleasantly surprised to see that I was wrong about the big-boned singers.  To be fair, as an eighteen-year-old college student, opera is not my music genre of choice.  I would be much happier listening to hip-hop, rap, or even country music.

One deterring factor of “Doctor Atomic” was the fact that I couldn’t understand the plot and events going on in the play without looking at the translator on the back of the seat in front of me.  The singers’ words were so distorted and unclear that I couldn’t just listen; I was forced to look down at the translator.  With my eyes going from the stage to the translator constantly, it was almost impossible to understand the dialogue and get the full effect of what was happening on stage.  I found myself constantly asking the question, “Why can’t they just talk?”  It would have been a much better and more enjoyable experience if the dialogues were spoken instead of screamed at the top of their lungs.  What I am trying to say is that “Doctor Atomic” would have been better off as a regular play or even a musical.  It would have been much easier to follow making it more enjoyable.  The audience wouldn’t have to turn to one another for an explanation, much like I did during the opera performance.

Some positive aspects of “Doctor Atomic” were the scenery and visual aspects of the performance.  The elaborate set designs were truly remarkable; however, the atomic bomb itself looked like a ball of lint.  Besides that one minor mishap, I loved the rest of the scenery.  This part of the opera was gripping from beginning to end.  The performance opened with actors and singers in what looked like a huge bookshelf.  It was almost as big as the stage and had many unique characteristics that allowed it to form into different pieces of the opera.  It opened at the middle like a window and even had shades on it to portray images shown from a projector.  It was interesting to see how the set designers used this one object in all aspects of the play whether it was used to convey the image of a storm, a bedroom, or an office full of scientists.

The actors displayed the guilt and mental anguish experienced by the nuclear scientists very well.  Scientists such as J. Robert Oppenheimer, “the father of the atomic bomb,” were portrayed as geniuses riddled with guilt.  Even though the gifted minds behind the Manhattan Project created a weapon that changed the world ever since it was used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II, they knew this opened a whole new world of terrible and disastrous consequences.  The facial expressions and tones in their voices truly allowed the audience to feel guilt and turmoil they were going through.
All in all, “Doctor Atomic” was not a bad experience, if you love opera.  For me, it was difficult to stay awake and understand the plot of the opera.  I feel that the opera would have been much better if the dialogues were spoken, especially in regards to an audience of a much younger age.  The story and plot revolving around the atomic bomb, the single most destructive weapon on the face of the earth, kept the audience interested.  This interest; however, only lasted until the singing began.

Struggling to concentrate on the tedious, lengthy aria, I lost my focus. Brightness of the stage diminished; soon I won’t be able to see the stage anymore as I began to close my eyes only to hear the soprano vibrating in my ear. This is not what I expected of Dr. Atomic, which opened at the Metropolitan Opera on Oct. 06, 2008. Directed by Penny Woolcock, Dr. Atomic failed to capture its young audiences as well as the majority of wealthy people who left the opera during the intermission. Even the last fifteen minutes of anticipation ended in a single flash of light that has no resemblance to the devastation of the atomic bomb.

Dr. Atomic revealed the tension between scientists during the testing of the atomic bomb, questioned by the necessity of using the bomb. Dr. Atomic, instead of reenacting the testing of the bomb itself, used the personal relationship between Robert Oppenheimer, leading scientist in the Manhattan project, and his wife, Kitty Oppenheimer, to explore what the bomb meant to people who were involved in the testing. The book shelve like building structure was successful in creating a sense of isolation between the scientists, used to illustrate the fear of the government that the scientists would be able to develop the bomb for other countries. The costumes also were chosen for purpose. The color of the costumes blended in to the general mood of the story, gray and haunting.

Though the staging was a success, the opera singing failed to spark any sense of excitement. Lines would be repeated with a pessimistic tone. Comparing to the play South Pacific, another work depicting the struggles of soldiers in the pacific island during the World War II, Dr. Atomic failed to translate the reality of war. While South Pacific brought in the tension of racial and social class struggle, Dr. Atomic lacked the element of surprise.

The opera’s lack of appeal to my hearing sense with the dropping of the bomb overshadowed the brilliant execution in the end of the opera with the Japanese women, asking for help. A shattering noise in the end would have changed the whole atmosphere of the opera, but the director wanted us to be the bomb. And he bombed it.

Much of the turmoil that results from such high stakes comes courtesy of the lead character, the genius behind the atomic bomb, J. Robert Oppenheimer. We can see Mr. Oppenheimer’s conflict as he tries to reconcile the advancements he is making in science with the potentially millions of deaths that it will cause. His struggle is one of the highlights of the performance. He is the central piece to the story and all of the other performances pale in comparison with his. Oppenheimer’s unparalleled intelligence provides the fuel that makes this project go, but we are shown his conflicted nature. One of the most poignant moments of the entire performance comes towards the end of the first half of the play. We see Mr. Oppenheimer standing alone with the atomic bomb held over his head as he sings John Donne’s Holy Sonnet XIV. He stares up at the weapon born of his brilliance and as he sings it is as though he is controlled by his ambition. It seems like he understands the terrible power of the weapon but cannot and will not be diverted from his course; he is too far on his path to turn back as he nears its end.

            Dr. Atomic is of course, an opera and it is open to debate as to whether or not it should even be one. In any case, much of the audience’s appreciation for the story will be governed by their appreciation for the quality of the actors’ voices. Overall, the cast did an admirable job with a very difficult task. Their voices were worthy of an Operatic performance and the actors made their characters believable for the most part. The music did well to convey the tension that permeated the performance. It was appropriately dramatic but could switch to softer tones as well. For example, the music would become softer during Oppenheimer’s conversations with his wife. The costumes did not have to be elaborate for this performance and they fit the time period quite well, with all of the men in suits and hats and the military officials in their appropriate attire. Last but not least is the bomb itself. The weapon of mass destruction certainly did not have the polished look of warheads from Hollywood movies, but it was not supposed to. There were wires wrapped around it and such and this gave it an almost primitive look, which was exactly what it should have had, given that this had never been attempted before. Even though the performances were solid, the music excellent and the costumes authentic, the Opera could not be save from the fcat that it would have been much better off as a full-scale play.

            Dr. Atomic, while being an opera in definition, is more of a very well constructed history lesson. This is not to knock the performers who did a fine job with what they had to work with or with the music that was cleverly adapted to this event. The problem is with the idea that such a fine story had to be told as an Opera. The performance is by no means a poor one and your time will not be wasted for it does a fantastic job with what it is given. I simply feel as though the Operatic nature takes something away from what is otherwise a fascinating time-period in history. The Manhattan project was shrouded in secrecy for so long that seeing its true story is extremely gratifying. If you have a chance to go see Dr. Atomic do so, if for nothing else than the fascinating history of its subject.

Robert Oppenheimer in Dr. Atomic

The Manhattan Project was one of the most secretive projects in the history of the United States. It took place during World War II and its purpose was to create a bomb by splitting atoms apart. This project was a success and created one of the most devastating bombs ever used by mankind, the atomic bomb. John Adam’s Dr. Atomic at the Metropolitan Opera is an opera about the birth of the atomic bomb and the technology, science, power and responsibility of the whole world on the scientists’ shoulders.

I’ve been to operas before, but this one was about as good as a lullaby.  When it started, I thought I just wasn’t getting the plot line, I thought that I just didn’t understand. As it kept going, the scientists working on the Manhattan Project couldn’t decide whether to drop the bomb. I had an urge to jump up and scream at them to drop the bomb and stop singing about it.  Even the end that I expected wasn’t as good as I thought it would be. In the final act the bomb is dropped and all we hear is a loud explosion and people standing bunched up, quietly waiting, hoping that they won’t die.
This opera is about the scientists working on the Manhattan Project, the scientists who created the first atomic bomb. One of the masterminds behind this project was Robert Oppenheimer. These scientists were working on the creation of such a powerful weapon in a race against Hitler, and the most part of this opera focuses on the possible effects of this bomb. Everyone worries whether the bomb will work and the scientists even make bets on how much energy the explosion will release. And if it does work, no one knows whether it might ignite the entire earth’s atmosphere. Act I closes with “This weapon has been created not by the devilish inspiration of some warped genius but by the arduous labor of thousands of normal men and women working for the safety of their country.”
It is a story that I feel could’ve been done much better. The inner struggles of Oppenheimer, his wife, and the other scientists are very predictable. And while it focuses so much on the human element, and on the wait, it is very dry, and the audience gets bored of waiting. Oppenheimer struggles with the possibility of taking innocent lives, Kitty Oppenheimer struggles with being lonely and frustrated, and the rest of the scientists are afraid of the unknown possibilities.
The end is suggested, not shown as we hear the blast of the bomb going off. The final moment, when the bomb finally explodes, is the anti-climax the audience has been waiting for. Unfortunately we don’t get to witness the explosion. The opera ends with a scream and a ghostly silence that is followed by a recording of a female Japanese voice begging for water. A sign of radiation poisoning. The last part stunned me and I tried to imagine myself in their situation. The responsibility of the bomb lay on their shoulders; they are partly responsible for taking the lives of those innocent civilians. Ultimately, it was a great idea for a story, but the story lacked action and required too much wait. Robert Oppenheimer would probably appreciate the careful portrayal of his inner struggles, but us, typical Americans, need more action to fully appreciate the story.

In very, very short, Dr. Atomic was a letdown.  It was so built up in my mind, with all the talk of its radical libretto and dramatic background story.  I was ready for a mind-blowing first opera, both in the message that it would convey and the majesty of the actual performance.  I was shockingly underwhelmed.  As the brilliant stage lit up in stark light and growling music I stiffened my self in anticipation that there would be chills slipping up and down my spine from first note to last.  Fifteen minutes in and I was slumped, devoid of emotion and almost developing a headache.

Common colloquialisms should sometimes stay just that.  Forcing it into the grand style of opera was choppy and mismatched.  The few times my ears perked up were when poetry was employed to tell the story, especially in Katie and Dr. Openhimer’s bedroom scene.  The beautiful shadow lighting and brilliant color of the women’s dress enticed my eyes to zoom in and take notice, though they were quickly lost.  My eyes would unglazed for the occasional impressive video art or actor setup on the three story moving set and my ears would curve in when the music happened upon a moment when the libretto matched the orchestra, yet those moments were few and far between.

The beautiful intent seeped through the strange performance, letting you know that it could be a life-changing story if only the actors were allowed to speak.  In this case, the spoken word would have made the performance so much more powerful.  The final crushing blow that could have been a monumental one was the lack of the mushroom cloud.  An image that evokes so much in history and natural fear was completely shirked in favor of metaphor.  The audience was not the bomb, it was the opera that bombed.

As you walk across the glistening White Sands desert in central New Mexico, you would never have imagined that a historic event had happened there 63 years ago. You pick up a green, glassy substance. What lies on your hand is trinitite, evidence of the first atomic explosion. What happened here, the events that lead to the detonation, and the psychological fear and stress of those involved in the Manhattan Project is the subject of the opera “Doctor Atomic” with dramatic music by John Adams and a libretto by Peter Sellars. Doctor Atomic brilliantly revived the historic yet modern event that marked mankind’s highest ambitions and deepest fears.

The opening scenes take place at Los Alamos, the headquarters of the Manhattan Project, two weeks before the test. The following scenes take place on the night of July 15^th and 16^th, in the hours leading up to the detonation. One major leading character was Robert J. Oppenheimer, the American physicist who oversaw and directed the project to create the world’s first nuclear weapon, a weapon that even struck fear in its creators. “I am become death, destroyer of worlds,” Oppenheimer once said when the bomb went off.

As the curtains unfolded, the stage and props were cleverly positioned and not what I expected. Each character occupied a cubical area that had shades on which portraits were revealed – the faces and names of the thousands of experts who were involved in the project. Behind those shades were the actual actors. The concept of a small cubicle certainly pertained to how each scientist felt at the time of the bomb’s creation. Each was assigned a job and worked day and night. At times, they threw their papers to the floor below them, creating a chaotic and turbulent atmosphere that I could imagine.

I admit that at some parts I was a bit confused, especially when the characters in each cubicle made interesting acrobatic positions. What really puzzled me was the finale, which basically was a prolonged moment before the bomb detonated. On stage, the entire cast crowded together while crouching on one knee, wearing tinted glasses, and staring into the audience. Although I anticipated an extraordinary explosion on the stage, I disappointedly realized that the audience was the actual bomb. The visual effect of the explosion of the bomb was literally blinding. The backdrop of a white sheet reflected the blazing light and illuminated the entire theater. This light signified the actual occurrence of the bomb’s explosion, a historic moment that stirred 20^th century science and proved the advancement of the United States’ scientific power.

Source: www.metoperafamily.org

What’s makes judging Sellars and Adams’ Dr. Atomic difficult is not that any individual element is or isn’t done particularly well.  On the contrary, there is no doubt that very little in Dr. Atomic is done well.  What makes passing verdict difficult is that Dr. Atomic, despite using a laudable libretto as its foundation, still displays enough insightful thinking to make it worth watching.
Dr. Atomic is an opera by composer John Adams, director Peter Sellars, and lead cast members Gerard Finley and Kristine Jepson.  The story revolves around J. Robert Oppenheimer, the “father of the atomic bomb,” his wife, and other important figures in the Manhattan Project when nearing the date for the first testing of the atomic bomb.  Given that Sellars has directed over 100 productions, it is a shame to see the librettist craft such a weak text for the opera.  The problem is that the text provided seems adequate for conversation but not for complementation by a musical score.  Such forceful accompaniment results in awkward pauses, strained delivery, and abruptly transitioned notes.  Take for example the excerpt from the 1945 Smyth Report, used as the opening chorus, or “Easter Eve, 1945,” Kitty Oppenheimer’s aria; neither is meant to be sung yet both are treated like any other operatic text.  This limits the entire production because the performers, while talented, can’t sing what doesn’t have musical harmony and, despite Adams’ efforts, a score can’t successfully complement text lacking any melodious rhythm.
That’s not to say that Dr. Atomic has no redeeming qualities.  The opening is very cinematic, with appropriately gaunt music and lighting, and proves historically accurate, emphasizing the isolation with which each scientist worked, never knowing anything past his or her own department.  The librettist, too, makes one good choice in quoting the Bhagvad Gita, which sounds apocalyptic without the singing feeling forced.  The composition, whenever freed from having to complement the text, works well in scenes where characters are silent, delivering that sense of impending doom most appropriate for this subject.
The opera’s biggest accomplishment, however, lies in the technical department.  The effects are consistently believable, with well-designed backdrops and an abundance of props and lighting schemes used to give each environment a unique flavor.  The concluding explosion has seen criticism for being too “weak” as a bomb but increased levels of brightness and sound could have proven painful so the degradation of force was a good choice.  Still, one particular scene where physics equations can be seen burning in the background outshines all others because it is both aesthetic and meaningful.  Science is always associated with progress and betterment yet this scene demonstrates how this supposed engine of advancement helped make man’s nightmare of absolute destruction a reality.
Ultimately, Dr. Atomic only rarely does well but those few moments in which it does are memorable.  It may be difficult to call this a masterpiece, but Sellars and Adams have created a technical marvel that inspires a complete rethinking of how science should be viewed.

“Matter can be neither created nor destroyed but only altered in form. Energy can be neither created nor destroyed but only altered in form.” These opening lines delivered by the chorus quickly summed up the wrong assumptions that hindered the atomic bomb. The orchestra, led by conductor Alan Gilbert, and the chorus, led by chorus master Donald Palumbo, were instrumental in shaping the moods of the various scenes in the opera. The music didn’t really stick to one genre nor was it particularly recognizable like Wagner’s Ride of the Valkyries. Instead, it dutifully lurked in the background as an unseen manipulator of the setting, and lended strength to the tensions between characters on stage.

One thing that struck me as extremely odd was the use of a black actor to portray General Leslie Groves. I know that as the audience we’re supposed to suspend our disbelief as we enter the theatre, but the opera stretches history enough as it is. It was hard to believe that the military supervisor of such a secretive project in 1945 could be a black man. Personal nitpicking aside, Dr. Atomic was very hard to follow, and the recreation of the test blast was extremely disappointing. And what was the point of the Japanese voices? I suppose it was referring to the eventual use of the atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but it just didn’t hold an immediate enough connection to the test blast, which was the moment that the entire opera was building up to.

My mixed emotions about Dr. Atomic, an opera composed by John Adams, are quite alike those of Robert J. Oppenheimer when he was creating the atomic bomb. The process of watching the opera in its beauty was alluring, but the end product was puzzling. My expectations for an intriguing opera ended with disappointment.

            I was amazed by the props on stage, especially the gigantic three-story box that housed numerous scientists working away at one point and Native Americans singing at another. The metallic bomb was also impressive. A few things, however, were a bit ambiguous in my mind. There were peaks of white cloth that I later found out were mountains, and it didn’t occur to me exactly what the bits of metal hanging around symbolized until the end of the play. I accepted these things as artistic liberties that I would later understand and I watched Act I and II with great anticipation. I was intrigued by the use of poetry in the lines of Oppenheimer and his wife, Kitty. I also appreciated the contrast between bedroom scenes and scenes of scientists and military officials in the desert. After the intermission, I expected Act II to be filled with tension and end with a piercing bang. I was only half right with my prediction.

            As I braced myself for the countdown to the detonation of the bomb, I opened my ears to Kitty Oppenheimer’s reflections on war, death, and resurrected life with an open mind of racing thoughts on the immensity of the opera’s plot and the characters involved within it. Near the beginning of the opera, Scientist Edward Teller sang, “First of all, let me say that I have no hope of clearing my conscience.”             The beginning of Dr. Atomic to Act II, Scene II was filled with strain and second thoughts on the sense of humanity that the bomb lacked. All of the poetry and internal struggle summed up in the end to be far less moving than I expected. All of the tension leading up to the finish of the opera ended with a fizzle, not an explosion. There was no sense of time near the ending of the countdown, which confused me. Instead of being a thundering bang, the bomb seemed to be as quiet as a gurgling brook. When the curtain closed, I expected another intermission followed by the real detonation of the bomb. Although the music, libretto, and set design of Dr. Atomic created a beautiful opera; all in all, Dr. Atomic was a let down. My high hopes for an explosive opera ended with a thud.