How can you tell what went wrong?

[Leigh Witchel]

This topic is an offshoot of the discussion on Balanchine and British critics.

A British critic was dissatisfied with Liebeslieder Walzer in Paris and saying the ballet was too long and dull. I saw the production as well and I've seen it in New York. Our tastes could also be different, but as far as I'm concerned, I know from experience Liebeslieder isn't dull. The production was flat.

For some people, if a performance isn't working it doesn't matter why. But if you saw an unsatisfactory performance, do you try and figure out what's unsatisfactory? There are many factors; dancers, staging, rehearsal time, coaching and others. How do you piece the puzzle together?

[E Johnson]

I’d like to add a similar question -- when do you think a dancer is bad and when do you think it's just an off night, or bad casting? I think abut this in connection with the incredible luxury I have of seeing NYCB 5+ times a season – I feel that I have an idea of which dancers are performing their best, their worst, and somewhere in between but I know other audience members don’t necessarily have that perspective (or agree with me!). One performance last season – Philip Neal in Donizetti Variations – at least one poster here thought was bad because it was miscast; I thought that it was bad because Neal was either sick or injured. Clearly we have different pictures in our heads of how this role should look as well as of the dancer’s capabilities.

[cargill]

In terms of trying to decide if a dull performance is the dance or the dancers, I think I tend to blame the dance if it is a new piece, I guess because in general it was made for those dancers. But in terms of an older work, I tend to keep in mind what people have written about it. I must say, when I first started seeing City Ballet, I really really didn't get Balanchine, much of it seemed dull and repititous or just plain silly (like the goons in Prodigal Son), but because so many people who knew so much thought it was great, I did try to keep an open mind, and of course, I finally saw the light! It isn't just Balanchine, I knew that Lilac Garden was supposed to be a great ballet, but I first saw it at the Met, with a less than spectacular cast, and thought it was dull dull dull. But I figured that it really couldn't be the ballet, or so many people wouldn't have gone into such extacies about it, and since then, I have seen some wonderful performances.

[carbro]

About half the time, I blame the conductor, because in those cases, it's because piece seems sluggish. But that is only when the piece is familiar, so I have a standard of comparison. If the tempi seem appropriate for a familiar piece, there's nothing left to do but blame the dancers and/or the ballet masters. If the dancers are familiar and the piece is new, I tend to blame the choreographer.

And sometimes it's me -- just feeling cranky.

[kfw]

How do I figure out what the problem was? That's easy. I read Ballet Alert!

[Ari]

I'm afraid the only way to figure out what's wrong with a performance you don't like is as much exposure to the choreographer, dancers, company, and style of the work as possible. Mostly that means seeing a lot of different performances, but knowledge gleaned from good criticism and journalism, and, as kfw says, Ballet Talk is also very valuable. The more you know about the various elements of the experience, the better you'll be able to isolate what it was that didn't work.

[Alexandra]

I agree with Ari -- that's the only way to train one's eye (seeing, reading, discussing, thinking and rethinking. And seeing.) Always remembering that it's perfectly ok to just go and have fun -- this is for those of us who want to try to analyze performances.

I have found from discussions with friends and colleagues that often on a first night of an unfamiliar work, it's hard to get past the performance: meaning, we see from the outside in: costumes, sets, production values, DANCERS. Good dancers can mask a bad ballet (I think more than bad dancing can obscure the virtues of a good one). I think this may account for the times that one likes something the first time and is more critical the second -- second time, one is more likely to see beyond the first layer.

E. Johnson's question is a good one too -- I think it's often possible to tell whether a dancer is off form or just not very good, but not always, because dancers so often dance with pain, yet put on a good show. But I think you can tell whether a dancer isn't putting everything into it using the same skills you'd use to judge whether the mechanic is really trying to fix your car, or fiddling around under the hood, not having a clue what he's doing.

[Helene]

I agree with Ari's point about getting as much exposure as possible. It was only after several years of seeing every Balanchine ballet NYCB performed during that time, and reading everything I could get my hands on, that I could look at the next new-for-me ballet and recognize why the choreography was a Tanaquil LeClerq part or a Jaques d'Amboise part. Today, if, for example, The Figure in the Carpet were revived, I would look at it through the lens of the original cast. That doesn't work for every choreographer, especially Petipa's work which has gone through over a century of changes and revisions, but it works for me for the ones who were inspired by particular dancers. For Liebeslieder, I think of Adams and Verdy, and after seeing Jillana in a short clip of the ballet, of her too.

Unless a dancer is marring the phrase with tricks, ignoring the music, or just doing his/her schtick regardless of the ballet, usually there is something in the performance that is right on the mark, or even revelatory.