"Double Feature" -- Thumbs up, Thumbs Down?

[Alexandra]

There's a real divide over the Stroman piece -- some people love it, some people don't. I know there are all kinds of shades of opinion, but I'd be interested to see a simple thumbs up, thumbs down on this one.

(Please don't vote unless you've actually seen the ballet!!)

[lampwick]

I had to say thumbs down because of the terribly simple, pedestrian choreography. Although many of the dancers were fantastic and the concept was entertaining enough, as a piece of art, it just didn't do it for me. I found it looking especially bad after seeing all the amazing Balanchine works this season...Stroman's piece didn't even begin to stack up to that calibre. As a piece of entertainment, Double Feature is fine. I just expect a very high standard when I go to see City Ballet.

[Ari]

I I found it looking especially bad after seeing all the amazing Balanchine works this season...Stroman's piece didn't even begin to stack up to that calibre.

That's City Ballet's problem with all of its new choreography: it's being matched against an impossibly high standard. In companies whose base repertoire is the older classics -- Petipa, Ivanov, Bournonville, Fokine -- choreographers are not chastised for failing to live up to those standards, perhaps because styles have changed so much that no one expects another Bayadere or Les Sylphides. That's one reason I've always thought commissioning new work that is non-Balanchinian in style would be good for NYCB. But apparently people will still compare.

I haven't seen Double Feature, and unless the company does it in Saratoga it's unlikely that I will. I might hate it, who knows. But I think it's healthy for them to try something different. It's not as though Double Feature is going to supplant Serenade and The Four Temperaments in NYCB's repertoire, just add to it.

[Farrell Fan]

I've been going to NYCB regularly since the sixties, and I've seen my share of clinkers in that time, some, incredible as it may seem, by Balanchine. The Stroman piece (I hesitate to call it a ballet, since that might offend some posters' sensibilities) had some dull spots, but was, all-in-all, marvelously entertaining. The dancers were obviously enjoying themselves and so, with a few exceptions, was the audience. Tom Gold gave the performance of his life, SAB's Tara Sorine was amazing, and it was a pleasure to see the NYCB dancers as we've never seen them before. I think it was Michael who put things in perspective by comparing it to Peter Martins's "Thou Swell," which didn't work. This does. I gave it a thumbs up. But I still don't buy the idea that this is an appropriate way to honor the Balanchine Centennial.

[Dale]

I gave it a thumbs up, but that doesn't mean I think it's a great piece of work. I'm not sure it's even a ballet, more like dance theater. I was entertained while watching it, but there wasn't any great ecstatic moment, nothing profound. And I think the best musicals, ballets or theater in general have it. The closest Stroman came was when the teenaged Mable appeared and Bouder danced her big number. I really liked the Duke! evening, especially Stroman's contribution to it. In a short piece (even the bits she did for Center Stage) her limited ballet vocabulary (or at least the knowledge of how to mix different sort of steps together), wasn't as apparent. She does have stage craft, but two things bothered me - 1) Kowroski's character wasn't developed enough. Why should we care about her? The opening number had a lot of pizzazz, I wish it was longer. Instead, Kowroski collapses right away. 2) In Makin' Whoopee, every gag was done at least 3 times. It became predictable and dull. One last thing bothered me, the projected words were not completely visible from where I was sitting in the 4th ring, they were cut off at the top. Would it really have hurt to bring them down a foot? Somebody should have checked that all of the audience would be able to see them. However, despite all this, I did enjoy myself. Whether I'll enjoy it on muliple viewings is a quesion.

Regarding the work as a tribute to Balanchine: First, we were told it was a tribute, then Martins says in the NY Times, that it's to be a cash cow and he would have had it sooner but Stroman was not available.

[dirac]

Nice crack from Gottlieb in his Observer piece on "Double Feature" and the Centennial:

For the record: The State Theater still has guards at the entrance, poking into handbags and parcels. Who do they think is going to blow up the theater, Balanchine loyalists?

[Michael]

I voted thumbs up, like some others, because I didn't see it as a Ballet, but as entertaining theater by a Ballet Company. It's fine as something to leaven the loaf in an otherwise Ballet season. The danger, however, is that the wrong lesson could be drawn from it. One of these is fine every few years, one of these is fine revived in repertory every season or two or three. But it's not something that can or should be repeated in the near run of three to five seasons, not something that can be repeated really, and is certainly not a model for a direction to take the company (it's not really classical Ballet at all, or, if it is, it's certainly not Good classical Ballet, which seems to be the complaint).

Besides comparing it to Thou Swell -- how about comparing it to Twyla Tharp's Beethoven Seventh some years back (with Mizrahi costumes, Damien rolling about the stage ...). That was about the same distance from Classical Ballet as this one, only in another direction (cross over modern dance, one might call it). I would much rather see the Stroman.

[Alexandra]

Bump! We had more posts on the thread about this than we have votes.

[kfw]

If Stroman is weak on steps, wouldn't Tharp have been the logical choice for a new piece in honor of Balanchine's work on Broadway? She's more expensive, and Stroman has the hotter name at the moment, is that it?

Gottlieb's opening paragraph made me want to cheer.

[Colleen Boresta]

I really enjoyed “Double Feature”. Susan Stroman’s choreography might seem a bit pedestrian compared to that of George Balanchine and Jerome Robbins. But in “Double Feature” I thought her choreography fit the music and advanced the plot beautifully. In my opinion it’s a million times better than the choreography of Peter Martins and 99% of those involved in the Diamond Project.

Everything I could say about the performances has already been said. I was especially impressed by Kyra Nichols. Who knew she was such a great comedienne. Nicholas was so deliciously evil. And Ashley Bouder – wonderful actress, fantastic dancer - I really want to see her as often as possible. She really looked like Maria Korowski. Yes I know their hairdos were the same and when they finally met they were wearing similar gowns, but the resemblance was much more than that. I don’t think Janie Taylor would have looked as much like Korowski. Tara Sorine who was so good as the young Mabel looked even more like Korowski. Speaking of Korowski, I also had problems understanding what Dorothy Brooks was all about. Maybe it was the way the role was written, maybe it was Korowski. I don’t know.

In “Making Whoopee” Tom Gold showed that he has real leading man potential. Why is he still a soloist after all those years? Why isn’t he a principal? And speaking of principals, it was great seeing Albert Evans again. At least Susan Stroman appreciates him even if Peter Martins doesn’t.

It has already been said several times but the orchestrations were wonderful, the costumes and scenery were great. I think this is a ballet that is going to be danced by the New York City Ballet for a long, long time.

[carbro]

Finally saw it and got to vote --Thumbs Up , because I had a very good time and had no doubt that the dancers did, too. A keeper, but as Michael suggested, to be applied sparingly.

What Farrell Fan and Colleen Boresta said: Me, too.

In the broadstroke scheme of things, Stroman is very inventive. The piece offered inside jokes galore, which only added to the fun. And I found that "hearing" the lyrics in my head added another layer (not to be confused with depth) to the experience.

Megan F. was just irresistibly, adorably bratty.

[Paul Parish]

I'll just say, I wish I coulda seen it. i think I'd have liked it. I was thinking about it a lot while I was watching Michael Smuin's St Louis WOman for DTH, which I really enjoyed, partly because the dancers were having SUCH a great time, getting hteir teeth into something that really appealed to them. ( I wrote about it this week on DanveView, so please check it out, any of you who think here might be some comparison worth making. )

And I've got to way, it's fun imagining Kyra Nichols being bad.......

[justafan]

I finally saw it last night, and I really had trouble deciding how to vote. Do I think it was a worthy effort, a good idea and a bit of fun. Yes. Do I think it was entirely successful and worth remaining in the rep for long? No.

In the end, I voted yes mostly because I think City Ballet should be "going for it " -- 750k and all. And the result was far from a disaster.

I agree with many criticisms of other posters, namely its limited ballet vocabulary and the fact that it could have used some editing. There were a number of periods that dragged with few interesting steps.

One thing that struck me: for the most part Stroman did not devise steps that displayed the dancers at their best. The exception was Woetzel -- who was simply spectacular last night and made everyone else on the stage (including Kowroski, Nichols and Bouder) pale in comparison. That's not to say that they did not dance well. Bouder, as well as Gold and Ansanelli in the second act, turned in very fine performances. The entire cast danced full out, with few mistakes. But I'm used to seeing first-casts given ballets that allow them to display their unique capabilities -- whether it is quickness of feet, delicacy of movement, elasticity, turns, etc. Except for the fact that the ballet required very proficient ballet dancers in these roles, this is a ballet that could tolerate many substitutions. I wonder if this was due to Stroman's lack of company knowledge, her dance vocabulary or Broadway experience. Maybe all of the above.

BTW, it seemed to be another sellout.

[Hal]

I have given it an ecstatic thumbs up. I loved it. One of the most fun evenings I have ever spent at the ballet, and I go a lot. It was as funny as the Consert and as endearing a Slaughter on Tenth. It was just FUN. Most of the people around us loved it as well, but the couple next to us also hated it and left at intermission. I think anyone who didn't enjoy it, just take ballet to seriously. Having a fun theatrical evening is not something to complain about. And as for GB rolling in his grave - maybe the GB of Agon, Symphony in C, Seranade and 4t's, but the GB of Slaughter, PAMTGG, Cabin in the Sky and all of those Broadway Musicals is sitting up smiling and laughing with the rest of the audience. And that is the Balanchine that this was supposed to be a tribute to. And it was a very fitting one IMHO.

Some specifics (including some complaints). The chorus line (Rockets tribute) was fantastic but was followed by not enough dancing by Kowroski. It got a bit dull and she could have done a lot more I would think. But I always think not enough Kowroski.... Kyra Nichols was a wicked delight as the mother, she could probably do a great Carabossa.... The young Dorothy by Tara Sorine was simply wonderful. She must have had the stage to herself for 10 minutes and held the audience in the palm of her hand (or better yet the slippers on her feet). How old is she 10, 11, 12? Amazing. The other young SAB student who played the young Fllorence was also terrific. And Ashely Bouder is clearly headed for stardom. I can't imagine her not getting promoted in the immediate future. The final duet with Kowroski was just wonderful. And Megan Fairchild was a fantastic comic dancer - who knew? What a delight. And Woetzel as others have said was outstanding.

The second half was a showpiece for Tom Gold, and he just about stopped the show. Wow, was he terrific. There were lots of fun with the passerbys all very ably danced and acted. And Ansanelli was also wonderful as the girlfriend. But it was Gold who stole the show. He was daring, funny, poignant, explosive, and charming.

So my only comment to those who hated it, lighten up. It was great theater with some wonderful dancing. I would have loved to have changed by 2 subs to Sleeping Beauty to 2 of Double Feature. Now I have to change one of them to Copelia as that is the only thing we wont be seeing. And I would even prefer a repeat Double Feature to a Coppelia but it is too late for that.