julip

Curious if there is insight on this... One of my worries in seeing the Balanchine Nutcracker at PNB was having to watch the single raised fingers in Chinese. Last weekend I didn't notice them, and then with the Chinese instagram video posted, yup, they took out the fingers. Has NYCB been doing this? or is this something new just for PNB.

Well, you just inspired me to say more! I went again last night (Saturday) and I saw Dec in the PdD. I actually (shock coming) preferred her in the role to Imler. I can't believe that I just typed that. I hate to say it, but I think it might have had something to do with body type. Normally I'd rather watch someone with Imler's body on any given day, in any given role, but she just didn't look right in alot of the movements. Sense of Doubt, however, still didn't do it for me. Sandy M., I wish that I could agree with you on it, but I just can't. But, as Peter Boal kept saying in the Q&A, he's all about having pieces that make the audience have a conversation. Somehow I doubt he was referring to this piece, though, when he was saying that. Nadeau was the cast that I really, really wanted to see in Fur Alina, but it just didn't work out for me to see her. I did see Miranda Weese on Saturday, and honestly, I preferred Rachel Foster. It's nothing that I can put my finger on as to why, they were both beautiful, but there was something about Foster's performance that grabbed me a bit more. I am VERY glad to hear that One Flat Thing is coming back next year. I had heard it as a rumor from a couple of people, but it's great to know that it was said in the Q&A. I definetly want to see it several more times. I was astonished in just two viewings at just how much of the structure was revealed. In the second viewing the moments of stillness, unison, call and response...on and on...everything became clearer...but at the same time the chaos was even more chaotic. I need more! lol. Oh, and apparently by the last performance, the length was down to (i think) 15:4somthing. That, to me, is amazing. The piece originally started at, what, 32 minutes? Something like that. Increadible. Also, it's worth it to try to talk to the sound mixer for One Flat Thing. I was lucky enough to be able to sit beside him for both shows (Well, unlucky, I'm on crutches and was sitting in the wheelchair area). It was very interesting to hear about how it is done and the rules surrounding it...apparently he worked with Thom Wilhelm (sp?) in order to do it. Understanding how the music works really helped me understand and see more of what was going on on the stage.

I rarely ever comment on the shows I see (at least in this forum), but dang this show is worth commenting on! Starting from the beginning, oh lordy why did I sit through Sense of Doubt yet again. Seeing it last year I just didn't get it. Not only did I not get it, but I was bored by it. A friend of mine said it all when she stated that "the only thing I'm doubting is if I just watched a ballet class or not". Watching it this second time, I was able to decipher a bit more why I just really don't like this piece. During the pre-show lecture, Doug Fullington was talking about how the title didn't mean anything, it was just the title of one of the pieces of music. Well, I can normally accept that, but in this instance the title does lend itself to a specific mood, wether the choreographer likes it or not. The music, costuming, and ligthing add to that mood. For the most part, the choreography does not. The choreography could just as easily be set to a pretty little Mozart ditty and come off just as well. I think if the entire work was to take on the same vocabulary and atmospher that the solo and v. v. ending of the finale, then I think I would feel differently, but it didn't, so...I was bored...again. I'm planning to go back again either Friday or Saturday, but I think I'll be arriving late as I really don't want to sit through that one again. "Fur Alina" I DO want to see again. Partly, because I want to be immersed in the atmosphere of it without being interrupted by a) the talking ladies in the back b) the cell phone that rang twice c) the exorbent amount of coughing and hacking that sounded like an outbreak of TB had suddenly hit the PNB audience. It was such a beautiful piece, with so many things unexpected. The turned in stances that punctuated the ending of such soft lyrical phrases, those keep coming back to me now. There was such sadness in them. Rachel Foster isn't a dancer that I normally notice, but this role is one that I will never forget her in. She really hit me. "Vespers" took me a bit to get into the groove with. My heart and mind weren't making sense of the rhythms with the movement and theme. It took a couple of minutes into the group section before my heart made sense of it all... I had to leave the mind behind. Once my body accepted--and loved the rhythms, with the theme and movement, then my mind was able to catch up with why it worked. It was like the internal rhythm when one is caught up in spiritual exctasy...balanced against the social network of a church community that is just so. There is order, and exctasy at the same time. It took me awhile to get there, to feel it, but I definetly liked it by the end...or half way to the end. By the time the six ladies repeated the contractions in the chairs on stage left, I was love. I loved, loved, loved "One Flat Thing, Reproduced". From the getgo, with that inital surge of rushing dancers pulling the tables forward, I was hooked. I am in awe and have such respect for just how cerebral Forsythe's choreography is, but that's not why I love it. There's a hundred choreographer out there who are cerebral, but they don't hook me in. There is something about his work that makes my heart pound a little--well, alot, faster. It makes me want to get up and run around and scream and dance and love and just be excited for life. I can sit down and discuss how brillant his choreographic techniques are, which I truly think they are...but there's so much more than that that catches me and makes me love every minute of it.

For me, it is the Sendak designs that make the production. It really is a visual delight. I do love the ideas that go into this production, and honestly I don't think it's as bad as some people make it out to be. It is the only Stowell work that I like...at all. I like the fact that it tries to find new ideas in the Tchaikovsky score. It's not an easy thing to do, and for the most part I think the ideas have the potential to succeed. In my ideal world, the production would remain the same, but the choreography of the individual dances would be tackled by someone else. The OP has stated that they observed Drosselmeier in this production being more of a Buffoon. I think that observation might be changed depending on who is dancing that role. I've always thought that that character in this production was more sinister and disturbing that a buffoon. I would also have to disagree that Seattle needs a new Nutcracker. It is still a big, big money maker in this town. Not because of the choreography, but because of the Sendak production. Everyone I know who is not in the dance community absolutly loves this production. They all look forward to going to it year after year. Every student I've ever had loves to go, even though it's an hour commute each way. They still want to go year after year and don't get tired of it. To bring in a new production would mean a huge financial undertaking that frankly, I wouldn't want to see. I would rather those funds go into other productions...or, say...dancer's salaries. The Stowell/Sendak Nutcracker makes money, lots of it. Leave it alone, let it continue to make money instead of bringing in a new one that will rack up millions of dollars of new production costs. I do, however, think that the Mark Morris 'Hard Nut' would do wonderfully in Seattle.

One of the reasons that Moore's interpretation worked so well for me, was that he seemed to be willing to make that sacrifice --over and over. There were many times throughout that I was convinced that this would all end in death, but he kept overcoming it to strive forward once more.

For myself... I saw friday night's performance with Rachel Foster. I feel badly for saying anything negative, because to just get through this piece...wow. I really, really wanted to like it. I really did, but she just did not hold me. There didn't seem to be a connecting thread there. It did seem truly abstract, but not in a good way. I do have to say that a big problem for me that was distracting was the lighting...which afterward at the Q&A Peter Boal stated that the board had malfunctoned, and I am completely willing to blame my whole experience on that. I went back to see James Moore at the Saturday matinee. All I can say is wow. I know it was the same choreography, but it was a completely different dance for me. He has such an ability to take otherwise abstract pieces and turn them into narratives that take you along for the ride. The night before I saw nothing, but with Moore there was suddenly an archtypical hero-warrior journey. Once again he made me cry (#5). He seems to have this extra focus and intent of movement that you don't always see from ballet dancers, it doesn't show in corps roles, but as soon as he's in a soloist position it's amazingly evident. There was one moment in particular that I keep seeing over and over. He took a grande plie in 1st, downstage right, with the body curving over cupped hands. The light caught the sweat dripping from his chin, onto his hands and floor. In that moment I saw an ancient pose of an exhausted man bending over a stream and drinking from his hands. It was absolutly chilling. I was going to go three times, once each for Foster, Poretta, and Moore. Now I'm going to go four times....I've got to see him do it one more time.

I am so, so very excited for this festival. I've been looking forward to it from the moment it was announced. It's a dance-geeks dream. I can't go on the weeknights, but I'll be camping out for the third weekend. Pre-Show, Post-Show, Inbetween Show (how exciting for the Crispin Spaeth group!) I'll be there. Between the RedHook and the trail mix, I'll be set. Although for the first time ever, I'm planning to watch something from the lobby. I'm excited for Pacific, but last time I saw Carmina I had a hard time not commenting throughout the whole thing. I'll just watch it from the lobby this time...or maybe they'll let me into that quiet room. I'm sure I could find a Cornish kid who loves to comment to go in there with me, it'd be a blast.

I believe that I saw this a few different times on the Arts channel. The design looked as if it were in a swamp or other muggy environment with the tree of dead turning and turnning. There was a corps of dancers who more or less hung out on a platform around the tree, and there were a couple of soloists who would, indeed, run back and forth alot. Everyone looked very dirty. I found it to be quite beautiful, in a disturbing sort of way. It was very mesmerizing. If it is what I'm thinking of, it was a scene from an opera...but I cannot remember what it was. I'll keep an eye out for it, it shows every couple of weeks or so.

I have this sudden image of George Bush doing the Roddy McDowell speech (as Augustus Ceaser) in Cleopatra. "Show me the way to war! Show me the way to Egypt!" while holding the spear aloft in front of the crowds. (I hope I got that quote right)

I had a great long think in the car driving the last couple of hours, and I have a couple of thoughts to add to the conversation. -Does anyone do truly original Petipa choreography anymore? I was going through my mental checklist and I can't remember how much of all that I've seen were Person X after Petipa, and how much of it wasn't, if any at all. - How much of my seeing Petipa as uninteresting stemmed from my finding the music uninteresting. Not including the three Tchaikovsky ballets (though there are points during those where I want to pull my hair out), all of the music just seems to blend into one score lending the choreography to feel like it all blends into one ballet. I don't know the answer to that question at all. I'm still pondering it. Reaching back into my memory from long ago Dance History classes, I seem to remember that he did prescribe how many counts and how many different phrases to the composer, but I might be off on that. Yes, the ballets are historicaly important and they need to be done, and they need to be done well. But, I can't see them as being innovative because they weren't too far off the mark from what story ballets that had come from before. In a more modern example, Balanchine was innovative, but Peter Martins not. Yes, they're fun ... and I do love them! believe it or not! I just don't see them as good art, and to me good art is good ballet. Now I feel like watching Paquita.

(oh yay! fun conversation! I have to actually put on my thinking cap this summer) But does fun to watch equal good ballet? Simply because a movie is fun to watch, does that make it a good movie? Is Petipa done so much because he was a good choreographer, or was it because he was in the right place at the right time and the Czar liked what he did. Do we accept his choreography as great because it was, or for some other reason. When I say that he isn't relevent, I mean he isn't to the world and our lives today. I do understand that his steps were relevant to the subject matter of ballet, but I would also say that Romantic ballets did it better and without as much obvious stopping between dancing and miming. And why have so few people been able to produce work of the same quality since? The list of Balanchine, Ashton, and Fokine is a rather short and limited list that disregards the possability of many gifted and talented choreographers who could have been great were they in the right place at the right time and in a dance community that felt that the art form should be pressed forward instead of only clinging to traditions of the past. How many great choreographers could there be out there but who aren't able to shine through because of the need to put disneyfied, full-length ballets on stage in regional ballet companies.

Oh! and what would be a good ballet? I wish I knew. Those art theory classes were an exercise in redundency, going around and around in circles about what isn't art ... I wonder if we ever actually got to what art was.

This all comes from my experience in an Arts College. In theory classes there is a mixed group not only of dancers, but visual art, theater, and music majors. So start off by imagining a militant art major sitting next to a bunhead. When I watch a Petipa ballet, I enjoy it and appreciate it. But it's not the choreography that I'm responding to, it's the technique and performance of the dancers. To me, if you focus on the choreography, there is neither intrest, relivence, or creativity. There is a stringing together of steps and style that is already set without it moving forward to further the art form. Now, that said, that is me in the 21st century talking. If I were an art critic circa 1895 I might feel differently. I am also not taking into account how Petipa fit into the history of ballet. In addition, if an individual dancer is able to put interest, relivence, and creativity into the set work by using breath, phrasing, and expression, then that dancer is creating a work of art, not the choreographer. ... I'm so going to get flamed over this...

If you were to discuss Petipa ballets in a modern day Art School forum, I'm sure that the general attitude toward them would be that they were a bad ballet. And I must admit that if I weren't a dancer I would think that true, but I love them.

Robert Barnett was from Wenatchee. He didn't choreograph alot, but I know he did about three works for Atlanta Ballet. I'm not sure if Pat Graney was born here, but she's definetly part of the Seattle scene. I could rattle off probably a dozen plus locals who are doing wondeful things in Modern dance, but I don't know if you're looking for ballet/nationaly known only. And why hasn't SandiK piped in on this yet?