Jump to content
This Site Uses Cookies. If You Want to Disable Cookies, Please See Your Browser Documentation. ×

The Balanchine Couple


Recommended Posts

Thanks, dirac. I was mistaken about the subject of the article, however. It's another piece about how dull the Balanchine rep is at NYCB these days, how exciting it is at SFB, and why. "Under the direction of Peter Martins . . . the New York City Ballet has turned its sights toward an aesthetic that is androgynous, glamorous, and visually opaque. In the hands of . . . Wheeldon, this new plasma-age style has opened new possibilities and yielded interesting results. But for the work of Balanchine . . ."

Link to comment

Well, Homans does review "The Balanchine Couple" program, way down in the article (it's three pages). However, as kfw notes, most of the rest of the piece seems to be taken up with what can now be referred to as anti-Martins boilerplate, in which Critic X finds thus-and-such to be lacking in Balanchine productions at NYCB, but all is not lost – thus-and-such can be found in the stagings of the Suzanne Farrell Ballet. Some make this case much better than others; Homans doesn't provide many specifics, but she's toned down the overwrought rhetoric that marked her NY Times piece on NYCB awhile back.

  "In [the current season's performances by NYCB] the intimacy, transparency, and immediacy that once animated Balanchine's dances is gone…..We recognize their finely wrought exteriors, but the dancers, many of whom are exquisitely formed, do not develop the internal life of the dance."

She praises "Chaconne" and "Serenade," which seem to be the two ballets that everyone agrees the company does very well, and makes allowances for those that don't look so good.

Homans still has a tendency to overstate, and statements like the following seem to come out of nowhere:

"Aristocratic and formal, [balanchine's work]…celebrates hierarchy and discipline rather than free self-expression; it places women on a pedestal; and it prizes courtship and feminine beauty over gender equality and ethnic diversity.  Not exactly correct in today's America."

Aside from the fact that this is a radical oversimplification of the issues involved, and doesn't lead to anything else in the article, any recent denunciations of Balanchine's ballets as un-American have escaped my notice.

I would also question her leadoff statements about the significance of Farrell's career in the context of Balanchines oeuvre. That he chose her to define his last word in contemporary ballerina style is clear, but Homans doesn't emphasize Farrell's extraordinary influence as a dancer so much as her role as an inspiration for great work.

"He choreographed some of his greatest works for her, including Don Quixote, Chaconne, and Mozartiana….with Farrell, Balanchine pushed his own neo-classical style to new heights, changing classical ballet forever." 

Well…..although Mozartiana is a relatively young ballet, it does seem as if it will take its place on the summit with Balanchine's other masterworks, but Chaconne was not made for Farrell but revamped for her and Martins, Don Quixote's stoutest supporters wouldn't call it a classic for the ages, and calling either one a masterpiece would be highly debatable, I think. It's generally conceded that perhaps the most impressive flowering of Balanchine's late-mastery was the first Stravinsky Festival, when Farrell had been gone from the company for several years. I don't believe this lessens or negates Farrell's importance – but calling her an inspiration for masterpieces actually seems to me to be a rather questionable claim.

Homans winds up with:

"The New York City Ballet has moved on……If the Suzanne Farrell Ballet becomes a permanent and full-time troupe at the Kennedy Center, it could change our cultural landscape. Washington could become home to a world-class ballet company dedicated to preserving and extending Balanchine's legacy."

Link to comment

I wrote this a few years ago - I think that Balanchine choreographed precious few masterpieces on Farrell. That doesn't negate her at all; it's just a great deal of her touchstones (Symphony in C, Concerto Barocco, Monumentum/Movements - Farrell premiered movments, but it was made on Adams) were recreations, not creations.

Link to comment

Not much Farrell Fan, and most of it you know from reviews here and Jack Reed's posting of what she actually said. Otherwise, Homans writes: "Farrell never dumbs the ballets down, and she does not try to make them fun, easy, or glamorous. She simply asks audiences to look, think, and engage with the text of a great work." (Isn't that refreshing of her).

I'm sorry you couldn't catch those performances.

Link to comment

Thanks, kfw. Actually, I was at those performances -- I just wanted to revisit them and was curious what Homans thought. It had seemed to me that a program of pas de deux would be a mistake, but in fact it was quite satisfying. And I was thrilled to see Farrell onstage again. She changed her narration slightly each time, but that wasn't surprising to those of us who'd seen her dance.

Although I'm looking forward to Balanchine's Don Q in June of 2005, I wish there would be an SFB season this year.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...