I think that’s entirely possible, Michael, even likely. And I don’t think that the film had to be “empathic” in the sense of mimicking or simply resonating with Messiaen’s “text.” (One could also imagine a film filled with soaring and reverent images of canyons and stars and birds, which would also be a poor match.) But it does seem to me that if the film is to “interpret” the music, it should be challenging, intense and complex enough to be in real dialogue with the music. Otherwise, I don’t really see the point. For me, this film was nowhere near that. So, either the film takes precedence — e.g., “A film by Daniel Landau, accompanied by music of Olivier Messiaen” — or, you close your eyes and listen!

Thanks, in any case, for this “renegade” concert. It’s a great season!

To begin: Messiaen’s “From the Canyons to the Stars” is an amazing piece of music, and it was very well performed by the Hamburg Symphony and soloists. I was thrilled to finally hear it live — and in Hill! — and to get for the first time the spatiality of the music. I would say, UMS, please: more Messiaen!

I agree with those who are lamenting the inclusion of the film. The film had some redeeming qualities, and I could see it in a much, much shorter version as a standalone piece — not great, but a bit interesting. But to attach it to Messiaen’s piece was to my mind a complete misfire, and a real “lack of artistic empathy,” as José Tapia so aptly says above. Messiaen’s score is epic and rigorous; the film was clichéd and meandering. Pause and silence are so important in “Des Canyons”; I suppose I can see a point of challenging that silence with forced images — but really, no thanks.

So, this was the last performance on the Hamburg’s US tour — but if there are future audiences elsewhere, my advice is: keep your eyes closed as much as possible and listen.

This was a beautiful, moving and inspiring performance. From the full minute of silence (thank you) to the transcendent final chord, we were rapt.

We found Richard III problematic. One of us liked it more than the other, but we largely agreed on what we found problematic about it. Propeller’s staging, aesthetic, and editing brought out nuances in the play that led to new insights. The pacing was excellent and the acting outstanding. The insane-asylum setting, the emphasis placed on Margaret’s curses, the combination of comedy and horror (we thought Clarence’s murder scene was brilliant and chilling) all served to create an atmosphere perfectly fitted to the England of the Wars of Roses and uncomfortably fitting to our own age. The farce helped set off the intensity of evil. But…what we felt missing was the heart of Richard himself, his all-too-human path to evil, the inner dynamic that connects his horror with himself to the horror he creates. And so, the dream scene was a disappointment. This Richard felt like a catalyst of atrocity in a machine for the making of atrocity. (The reading, not the actor.) A fascinating reading, but in the end, not quite enough.