Posted 07 November 2003 - 09:55 AM
Posted 07 November 2003 - 10:09 AM
I'd love to see Julie Kent as Hagar; I was very impressed when I saw her as Giselle.
Posted 07 November 2003 - 10:44 AM
djb, Julie Kent was one of the 3 Hagar's this season. I've seen all 3 and I'm sorry to tell you that she was my least favorite. To me, her characterization was very weak and one dimensional. I just felt a constant numbing sadness in her interpretation, no passion, or fear, none of the depths of emotion that Sallie Wilson brought to the role. I also thought that, dramatically speaking, she had the weakest supporting cast. Corella played the man from the house opposite and David Hallberg was the friend. Corella wasn't compelling enough for me as the man across the way (do you remember the way Marcos Paredes oozed sexuality with Sallie Wilson?). Hallberg is an absolutely wonderful dancer, but he's tall and very pure of line, blond & handsome with matinee idol good looks - dramatically it just didn't make sense to me, though I'm sure others will feel differently!
Posted 07 November 2003 - 11:12 AM
Posted 07 November 2003 - 12:31 PM
Then I read Carbro's review in the week 2 thread and a lightbulb went off in my head.
QUOTE (carbro @ Oct 29 2003, 07:20 PM)
I loved Gillian Murphy's Hagar. For the first time, I realized that Hagar was really an adolescent. An older adolescent, perhaps, but certainly not yet an adult.
Of course, Murphy's Hagar was a teenager, caught between her older sister's static world of repression & self denial and her little sister's almost psychotic need to flirt with every man she sees (Xiomara Reyes was the little sister for Kent & Murphy). Her world and her choices were filtered through the teenager's heightened emotionalism that makes every casual slight into a disaster,every molehill into a mountain. Certainly not Wilson's Hagar, perhaps not even a Hagar that Tudor could have envisioned but I thought it was very interesting, well thought out and compelling. Kent, I thought, was just dull!
Posted 07 November 2003 - 05:24 PM
Posted 07 November 2003 - 05:30 PM
Posted 07 November 2003 - 05:43 PM
Posted 07 November 2003 - 06:17 PM
Posted 07 November 2003 - 06:47 PM
Posted 07 November 2003 - 08:44 PM
To my eyes, Tuttle's YS was less mean, more innocent than Reyes' -- more along the lines of McKerrow's YS. Nicely done.
Posted 07 November 2003 - 09:07 PM
Also, ATM, if the tape of Pillar you have referred to is the one in "ABT - a Close-up in Time" then that is Elllen Everett as the younger sister and Bonnie Mathis as the older one. Already at this point, I think Everett's portrayal has a malicious component to it - so I've never seen this role done any other way. I do think that Reyes has taken it a step further, her flirtatiousness bordered on the psychotic in my mind, and she definitely appeared to be deliberately taunting Hagar. Tuttle's portrayal probably wasn't much less malevolent, but after Reyes it seemed much more benign to me!
Posted 07 November 2003 - 11:02 PM
This may be a gay man's response -- Keith was certainly gay, and so am I -- but so was Tudor. It's not sexist, really, for it's not about WOMEN -- it's about beauty, and how you respond if you need to have it and you don't. Very mid-century theme -- it's in Rodeo, and all through Tennessee Williams.
I hope it isn't too tacky of me to say that Hagar has to be a homely girl, if not downright ugly. Sallie Wilson could be transfigured by hte beauty of her expressions and of her dancing, so that great beauty shone through her, but she was not a good-looking woman. Julie Kent can't possibly do the role, she's Breck-girl pretty, and she doesn't have the dramatic range to play someone who doesn't THINK she's pretty that (say) Ingrid Bergman or Olivia de Havilland had.
Posted 08 November 2003 - 04:10 AM
Posted 08 November 2003 - 05:19 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):