Has OBT changed??
#1
Posted 10 December 2003 - 12:05 AM
#2
Posted 10 December 2003 - 12:23 AM
And welcome to Ballet Talk!
You'd probably sound less grumpy if you told us a little about yourself and where your opinions are coming from. From a distance, I'm definitely interested in seeing what Stowell has planned for the company, and I'm willing to cut him slack for more than a single program. Given the choice between imperfect Balanchine and perfect Canfield. . .well, I was never very fond of card games!
#3
Posted 10 December 2003 - 10:21 AM
After seeing a lot of ballet in NYC for 20 years, I have been attending OBT regularly since 1996 and have watched the transition from Canfield to Stowell with great interest.
I would have to agree with Leigh that you are kind of jumping the music by so severely criticizing Mr. Stowell based on his first program. But hey, I get grumpy, too!
The transition from one Artistic Director to another is a complex one. Different artistic visions require different dancers and appeal to different audiences. Personally, I have felt that Christopher Stowell should be given two full years to develop his company and vision. You may of course, disagree with that timeline, but you must allow for some transition period and try not to judge so harshly so quickly.
Please be aware of the economics of the situation: OBT is trying to upgrade and expand the company at a time when Oregon has a lousy economy and private and corporate giving is drying up. That Mr. Stowell was able to capture quality dancers like Kester Cotton, Yuka Iino & Gavin Larsen on his limited budget is a testament to the powers of his persuasion and connections. Also, you should know that he was bound by agreement to offer contracts to most of the Canfield company and has to proceed slowly in making a company that can properly dance his programs.
I can't comment on alienated alumni without more facts, but will agree that there have been some very chill winds blowing from the front office over the years. I sincerely hope that will change.
Chris Stowell is as engaged and excited as a new AD could possibly be. He is not going anywhere else for a very long time.
I hope you will be attending The Nutcracker. Tell us what you think of it.
Writing in the rain,
Watermill
#4
Posted 10 December 2003 - 10:35 AM
i'm ok with your expressing your feelings about the show you saw. Go AHEAD. I wish I'd been there to see it.
What else was on hte program? HWat was good about Rubies?
Were there flashes of good stuff anywhere?
Please, GO INTO DETAIL....
#5
Posted 10 December 2003 - 03:29 PM
#6
Posted 10 December 2003 - 11:28 PM
The Taylor Company's performance of Company B was MUCH grittier and darker than SF Ballet's, which was lighter and higher-spirited ( as goes with the higher center of gravity in hte dancers) but I thought equally wonderful. In theTaylor Rum and Coca-COla, for example, that girl looked like she might not be able to control htese hooligans; in SFB's Joanna Berman was the goddess of hte isles, she was in no danger at all -- but it was I thought equally valid. At SFB< also, ERic HOisington made Tico-TIco something really dangerous -- it was mysterious, tremendous.... but he DID have the weight you're talking about, he came out of hte North Carolina school of hte Arts and had been a modern dancer.
Did you feel that Company B gave the OBT dancers the kind of challenge that could make them grow, or was it just beyond them altogether and a mistake?
PS What did Ms Roper dance? What is she like? I've never seen her.
#7
Posted 11 December 2003 - 10:38 PM
Pacific Northwest Ballet's performances of the work are similar -- much lighter, both in tone and physically, that the Taylor company's. It was interesting to me that I didn't object to the difference here, while I get itchy during many ballet performances of Limon's "Moor's Pavane." I think it's because I saw Company B on a ballet company first, so that's my original reference point.The Taylor Company's performance of Company B was MUCH grittier and darker than SF Ballet's, which was lighter and higher-spirited ( as goes with the higher center of gravity in hte dancers) but I thought equally wonderful. In theTaylor Rum and Coca-COla, for example, that girl looked like she might not be able to control htese hooligans; in SFB's Joanna Berman was the goddess of hte isles, she was in no danger at all -- but it was I thought equally valid. At SFB< also, ERic HOisington made Tico-TIco something really dangerous -- it was mysterious, tremendous.... but he DID have the weight you're talking about, he came out of hte North Carolina school of hte Arts and had been a modern dancer.
#8
Posted 11 December 2003 - 10:58 PM
But I think it's also really interpretable at two different levels -- one is 'archetypal," the other "realistic." THe Taylor company's version is earthier, LESS musical, more realistic; the ballet version is airborne, larger in movement, larger in energy, more gleeful -- larger than life, and it's very satisfying. Which doesn't keep "There will neeve be another you" from breaking your heart -0- but it's not about these PARTICULAR people, for me it was about my parents' generation, the whole ballet explained more about how my parents met and fell in love and how such different people could come to get married than anyting I'd ever seen before.... so I filtered it through my family mythology, and since both my parents were ghigh-minded and idealistic and rather un-fleshy people, the idealized versoin of hte ballet actually fits more closely into my family romance than the earthier version. If my parents had been earthier people, well, I'd be different myself..... and so would the works of art that really speak to me.
bUT cOMPANY b IS A GREAT BALLET, AND i THINK IT SPEAKS TO many PEOPLE -- WHICH IS ONE REASON i THINK (oops, caps lock) it's a great thing Stowell has done for Portland, to bring them a ballet really worth seeing.
#9
Posted 12 December 2003 - 07:57 PM
#10
Posted 12 December 2003 - 10:09 PM
Oh, the men...the men. We could put together a terrific company if we could pick and choose from 15 years of companies. It seems like there are 100 qualified women for every company opening...and 10 openings for every qualified man.
Going to Nutcracker? Check it out and let me know what you think on the OBT Nutcracker thread.
Watermill
#11
Posted 13 December 2003 - 12:34 AM
Oakland ballet had a whole roster of dancers who didn;'t look like that but moved in marvellous ways -- Julie Lowe comes to mind right away, a dancer of wonderful quietness -- and then there was Lara Deans Lowe, who WAS super-skinny but still didn'tl ook BaLANCHINEE-Y -- oops, caps lock again -- both of them had, well, have wonderful imaginations for dancing..... Erin YaRBOROUGH... how many others.... Patti Owen.
I am sorry you didn't get to see the cast you mentioned in COmpany B.
Please keep posting. I'm one of many who want to hear wha it'sl like in Portland. Did you like Nutcracker? (It's not typical Balanchine at all.)
#12
Posted 13 December 2003 - 08:21 AM
And the different body types among the apprentices indicates that this variety is going to continue under Stowell. I find this not only healthy but entertaining. Who wants to look at cookie cutter dancers?
#13
Posted 15 December 2003 - 09:22 PM
#14
Posted 15 December 2003 - 09:56 PM
Not sure which side of the fence you're leaning to re Mary Mac ...but I'll just toss in the fact that because she had not been with the company for three years, Stowell did not have to offer her a contract. But he did. Good for him. Many would not.
By the way, thanks to judicious placement of a tall student in Nutcracker Snowflakes, Mary Mac did not stand out much. It took me a minute to even realize she was a Snowflake. She does a good job adjusting to very tight corps formations. Don't know how they do it. Hear the pom-poms went flying at one performance!
#15
Posted 16 December 2003 - 12:06 PM
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:


This topic is locked
