Teasing apart the artistic elements
Posted 27 April 2003 - 07:34 PM
Alexandra, your course sounds fascinating. Your description of it gives good guidelines for us to pay attention to. Any chance you might give the course again?
Posted 09 May 2003 - 09:39 AM
Posted 09 May 2003 - 12:12 PM
I tend to prefer "immersion" myself...but, in part, this is because I don't have a strong technical knowledge of ballet.
Posted 09 May 2003 - 01:14 PM
Posted 09 May 2003 - 01:48 PM
Posted 09 May 2003 - 04:14 PM
Originally posted by Leigh Witchel
dancercheese, when you're watching a film, sometimes there's a close up of an actor's face. Sometimes there's a wide shot showing where s/he is. You learn something important with both.
And it is for this reason that I wonder why so many people insist on seeing dance from as close to the stage as possible. I think the ideal way to see a ballet is from afar and above, enabling a view of the whole stage (and choreographic design -- particularly in "white" acts) and armed with a pair of opera glasses. I rarely use the opera glasses for a new work, but once I know when (if) the quieter moments occur, I might scan faces.
I don't think the usual mid-orchestra "critics's seats" -- assigned by theater management, right? -- are well positioned for a fair overview of the stage action.
Posted 09 May 2003 - 06:25 PM
Ideally, you should get something from a ballet from all parts of the house, even in the nosebleed seats, if the choreographer knows what he's doing. I agree that you can see things from on high that the people close up don't -- the example that always comes to my mind is the first section of "Diamonds" where, from the orchestra, the girls just seem to keep shifting prettily to and fro and one's attention tends to wander, although the music is beautiful. Then I moved up a couple of sections for the next performance, and then it was, "Oh, that's what he's doing." It still wasn't deeply fascinating, but I could see Balanchine's patterns much better. And for an applause machine such as the "Diamonds" finale, where the stage is full and still the dancers keep coming, a more distant location is best.
However, for most other ballets I do like the orchestra or something close to it. You get used to looking for the details, and shifting to binoculars or opera glasses distracts me.
Posted 10 May 2003 - 03:48 AM
i'm a critic and i completely agree. i HATE those seats - but that's what i always get. if the theatre's not full, sometimes i sneak upstairs in the intermission, and reposition myself! ;) (i don't use opera glasses, though - our little city's dance venues aren't THAT huge, and i rarely feel that specific close-up detail of facial expression matters in dance.)
I don't think the usual mid-orchestra "critics's seats" -- assigned by theater management, right? -- are well positioned for a fair overview of the stage action
like BW, i prefer 'immersion', but since i am usually at a performance as a reviewer, immersion is an indulgence i am usually denied.
Posted 10 May 2003 - 07:04 AM
Posted 11 May 2003 - 02:42 AM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
Help support Ballet Alert! and Ballet Talk for Dancers year round by using this search box for your amazon.com purchases (adblockers may block display):