79 replies to this topic

[beck_hen]

I am looking forward to ABT's run of Apollos, since I have only seen it once, with Jose Manuel Carreno. I was very surprised not to enjoy his performance, since I have thought of his dancing as godlike. I tried to think of one word to describe it, and all I could come up with was antiseptic. There was early awkwardness, but it came across as discomfort with a different movement vocabulary rather than acting. The choreography seemed to thwart him instead of revealing him.

[Helene]

papeetepatrick, on May 17 2006, 07:34 AM, said:

However, what I had adored was Farrell in 'Romeo and Juliet.'   That's Mejia's, isn't it?  I hadn't ever seen the Tchaikovsky 'Romeo and Juliet' danced to, although it must have been done a good bit.

Although Farrell's most famous Juliet was Bejart's to music of Berlioz, Paul Mejia also choreographed the ballet to Tchaikovsky.  (According to Ballet Met's website, in a list of Selected Chronology of Ballets on the Theme of Romeo and Juliet (Compiled April, 1998), which starts from 1785, Mejia originally choreographed his version for Ballet Guatemala in 1978.)

papeetepatrick, on May 17 2006, 07:34 AM, said:

Regarding Hubbe in 'Apollo', I thought since posting above about the remark that he started as a god rather than becoming a god.  This is surely an important point.  I wonder whether, in his case, that might not be almost more difficult than anything, through no fault of his own except having that much glamour.

I think it's difficult, if not impossible, to portray the full development of Apollo in the truncated version.  Ib Andersen, who I only saw in the short version, came closest, but until I saw the full version, I didn't realize what was missing.  (Apollo's birth.)

[papeetepatrick]

Helene-thanks for that marvelous link for those like me who are really trying to remedy our deficiencies in ballet history.    I am in process of googling for tapes of some that I haven't seen, thus far am turning up mostly the Prokofievs that I am familiar with.  Would love to see the Berlioz and some of the other Tchaikovskys, but I imagine most of them are not commercially available.  I also want to see some ballets of composers who wrote exclusively or mostly for ballet, that I otherwise haven't usually heard of.  Schneitzshoeffer is unfamiliar (never have seen 'La Sylphide,' but will at least finally see an excerpt on a NYPL VHS shortly), as was Drigo.  I knew Adolphe Adam and Delibes, of course, but I think I will discover something about a very specific sort of 'ballet-only music' by listening to some of these composers who are not well-known for other music.  In 'Le Corsaire' I can already hear something of what my problems were when I was somewhat involved (long after Kryzanowska) with playing ballet classes--those teachers who liked my playing tended to let me improvise too much, then when my old friend Bobby Blankshine decided to use me at Steps in 1983, I got fired because I didn't know the more traditional style well (I could have quickly repaired this problem in a single day, but I am fairly sure things may have already gotten to a difficult stage; however, he did live another 4 years.  Needless to say, this was a disturbing experience which I have only now begun to re-assess.  I never saw him again, but was horrified to hear of his death in 1987.)  There was a very popular pianist there at the time, Hispanic but I cannot remember the name, who knew exactly what to do and she was always in great demand.

I just saw that ABT will have several Apollos in June.  I've never seen it anywhere but NYCB actually, so don't know how different it might or might not be;  and as my ballet-going budget is a bit more restricted this year, I'm wondering if I should try to see Veronika Part, whom I haven't ever, or just go ahead and see 'The Firebird' and 'Fancy Free' since I'm sure not to be disappointed, especially after seeing Bouder in the former in 2004.  I saw 'Fancy Free' at Saratoga in 1980 and have never seen it again.

[carbro]

I adore Veronika Part, but I will warn you of two things.  First, when I saw her last fall in Apollo, she hadn't yet grasped the essence of the ballet/role.  She is a ravishing dancer, but (like Bouder) very inconsistent.  I mean "inconsistent" not in terms of on- or off-nights, but in the sense that she tends to try different things in each performance of a role.  I suspect that you share my admiration for this kind of artist, but you run the risk of a miscalculated reading.

However, Part is Terpsichore to Hallberg's Apollo, and there's no way I'm going to miss that!

[Anthony_NYC]

My recollection of Nureyev in the role is just as Sandik describes it. He was clearly not in great shape, but was mesmerizing and moving in spite of panting and perspiring in a worrisome way. Even small things--the way he folded his lute into the ground, his posture and countenance as he sat watching the Muses--were unforgettable. Unfortunately, the powerful effect was eviscerated by his three Parisian Muses, who flounced through the ballet as if it were just the cutest thing. I always thought Martins was particularly superb in this ballet, with that great classical repose of his, a marble god to Farrell's alabaster princess. Boal was also one of my favorites; I only wish he had a more godlike height, to give the role more weight. Zelensky has the height, but I always found him gangly and lacking nobility. Right now, I think Hübbe is my favorite. But I'm very much looking forward to Hallberg in the role.

I much prefer the full Apollo. It shows his development more clearly, which makes the final scene more powerful and meaningful. I also think the "sunrise" image is more moving when it's just another passing moment in a chain of extraordinary metaphorical events. Also, I just adore the moment before the blackout, with arms aloft and lyre-like, undulating to the sound Apollo's lute. What a great ballet! And Balanchine was what, 25 when he made it? It boggles the mind.

[bart]

These posts have helped me to reflect on decades of Apollo watching.

For me, also, the most effective Apollos have tended to be those who brought a dramatic concept and the nuance of an actor to the movements contained in the role.  It's not just "do the steps," as Balanchine is alleged to have instructed a group of dancers.

While reading Anthony NYC's post about the effect created by Nureyev, my mind went to something in Barbara Newman's "Grace Under Pressure:  Passing Dance Through Time."  She quotes an example of the wisdom of a Kabuki master, passed on to Peter Brook by the actor Yoshi Oida:  "

"I can teach a young actor the movement of how to point to the moon.  But from his finger-tip to the moon, that's the actor's responsibility."

A great sense of the music, and the ability to phrase, don't hurt, either.

[bart]

One dancer usually not associated with the essential Apollo is Edward Villella.  But Villella's Apollo, which I saw only once, is still fixed in my visual memory as exciting and somehow quite "right" though also quite unique.  In Villella's book "Prodigal Son" there's a description of how Balanchine worked with him in the studio to develop his approach to the role.

Quote

When I was done [performing the opening variation], Balanchine looked at me matter-of-factly and said, 'No, that's not Apollo.'

'What do you mean?; I said.  'Those are the steps and the counts.'

'Those are the steps and the counts, but it's not Apollo because you don't understand that dancers are poets of gesture. ...  Dear, I will show you Apollol'

"What followed was extraordinary.  Sixty years old at the time, Balanchine stood in the studio in a double-breasted gray suit and a green-and-white-strip cowboy shirt, a string tie, and loafers, and he danced this big variation from Apollo for me.  It was astonishing.  I could see the music emanating from his body.

Balanchine seemed willing to allow Villella to develop the role in a way that was faithful to his own physical nature and to personality.  To Villella, for example, Balanchine described Apollo as "a rascal."    However .....

Quote

I'm convinced Balanchine never described Apollo as a rascal to Peter Martins.  He was telling me to be myself in the role .... But I, too, was learning and growing, developing a new identify, striving for nobility, and a new American elegance, through art.  I didn't have to emulate Lew Christensen or anyone else in the role, didn't have to project the lifeless image of a noble god.  I could present Apollo as an ideal human being I intimately understood."

[drb]

Thanks for the wonderful story from Villella, bart.
I'd almost want to change your "though" in  

Quote

quite "right" though also quite unique

to "because."  Mr. B's statements are so consistent with Igor Zelensky's, a few posts above. In part

Quote

... Balanchine left a margin for each dancer to do it his way. His choreography is just a framework, and it’s fascinating to watch that every dancer does it differently. The piece has its plasticity, its technique, and you just breathe a new life in it. Besides, every dancer has a different body and that also an important factor.”

Of course I'm just back from seeing Carlos Acosta's way with Apollo (the Terpsichore excerpt) at ABT's Gala.  By making it his, he made it Balanchine's (for me).

[bart]

drb, for those who might have missed it on the ABT forum, here's your take on Acosta:

Quote

Carlos Acosta is an awesome Apollo, his growth and transcendence during the Terpsichore part of the ballet had the refinement and subtlety, and power and charisma, that just may make him the best I've seen since Martins. A Kingdom for a Farrell tonight, alas...

But ...  did you LIKE it ???  

[drb]

bart, on May 23 2006, 08:15 AM, said:

...
But ...  did you LIKE it ???  

The three Apollos that I've liked most live are Martins, Zelensky and Acosta.  I never saw Villella's, but did see Nureyev's and many others since, some immensely admired on these pages.  As to the Gala performance and those since at the Met, I think the Met's stage, built to amplify sound, is not good for this ballet.  It belongs on Mr. B's stage across the court, one built to silence thudding shoes.  Remember how quietly large Mr. Martins used to land?  And Suzanne?  For me, Paloma's noisy landings broke any spell of lyricism she might have had.

[bart]

Robert Garis ("Following Balanchine") just made my       with a refrence to "Jacques d'Amoise's pompous, coarse performances during the 60s" and his suggestion that Balanchine put up with them because "perhaps he didn't care" about the ballet" any longer.  (p. 77)

I just saw Nilas Martin in the (mid-90s) Balanchine Celebration video.  "Hey man, I know I'm supposed to be a God, but, like,  it's pretty early in the morning to have to do these steps.  And you want them fast, sharp and strong?"

[Ray]

I had the privilege of seeing Peter Boal do Apollo, with Farrell's co. (?).   I had never seen a generous Apollo before, and would have not thought it possible.  A midwife to the muses' talents--pretty wonderful stuff!

[Farrell Fan]

Mercifully, I've forgotten almost everything I read in Robert Garis's book, but since Bart brought it up, I went back and looked at it. Talk about pompous! On the same page Bart refers to, there is this gem: "For Stravinsky and for me, the ending of Apollo is tragic." (Balanchine, apparently, was too obtuse to share this opinion.) What I hated about this book (it comes back to me now), is that it told me little or nothing about Balanchine, and more than I would have ever cared to know about Garis.

Peter Boal was much the best Apollo of recent times, both with NYCB and with the Suzanne Farrell Ballet (although for reasons of sheer prejudice, I thought the Farrell performances more luminous. But I also liked Peter Martins's Apollo. I didn't understand those who thought him too much the stolid, corporate god.

[bart]

Farrell Fan, on Apr 2 2007, 12:30 PM, said:

Mercifully, I've forgotten almost everything I read in Robert Garis's book, but since Bart brought it up, I went back and looked at it. Talk about pompous

Alas, Farrell Fan, I have to agree.  There are a lot of interesting observations, but it took me a while to figure out that Garis's subject is NOT Balanchine, and NOT Ballet -- it's how Garis's personal aesthetic values and judgments were formed.  His central concern (never overtly expressed) is "how did I become the ballet observer that I am?"

This leads to frequent examples of the phenomenon you point out:  one in which ideas like "Balanchine" and "Stravinsky" -- or, indeed, the "ballet Apollo" -- serve mainly as props or excuses for expressing some new insight or experience in the inner life of Mr. Garis.  

Indeed, this is possibly the most solipcistic book about the arts that I've ever read.

[dirac]

Pardon me, and it's off topic, but I have to speak up for a book in which I found much to appreciate.  

Quote

Alas, Farrell Fan, I have to agree. There are a lot of interesting observations, but it took me a while to figure out that Garis's subject is NOT Balanchine, and NOT Ballet -- it's how Garis's personal aesthetic values and judgments were formed. His central concern (never overtly expressed) is "how did I become the ballet observer that I am?"

For me, that was part of the value of the book.  Garis’ subject is Balanchine, but he comes to his conclusions from a continuous process of examining his own reactions  and trying to account for them.  I thought him particularly interesting on the Balanchine-Stravinsky relationship and he writes most thoughtfully about the style of Violette Verdy and on Farrell.  I can understand seeing his approach as “me-me-me” but this preoccupation doesn’t necessarily detract from his critical acumen and in addition I think it made him exceptionally honest in his reporting of his reactions, not always the case.  It led him in some odd directions (he’ll say of a ballet, “I hadn’t worked on it with Balanchine” and things like that) and I wouldn’t want to hear this stuff from every critic, no, but from Garis I don’t mind.

Quote

On the same page Bart refers to, there is this gem: "For Stravinsky and for me, the ending of Apollo is tragic." (Balanchine, apparently, was too obtuse to share this opinion.)

I haven’t picked up the book in awhile, but as I recall, the context of that quote is Garis discussing the cuts that Balanchine made to the ballet, which Garis regretted, and he is suggesting that eliminating the original ending also eliminates the tragic note present in the uncut ballet and the score.