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

ROMEO & JULIET


Recommended Posts

Diana and Angel, a Partnership July 10

When Juliet Vishneva meets Paris Hallberg in her chambers she's all too happy to have such a dream suitor. So much so that as he and her mom, Veronika Part, are leaving, mom waves a "you naughty girl" finger at the girl. I think the two daughters of St. Petersburg enjoyed this moment.

Later, during their first meeting alone in the ballroom, as Juliet and Romeo Corella stare into each other's eyes their hands meet. A connection never to be broken. The third "date" for these two virtuosi, and three's a charm. They are now a partnership, each spurring each to greater heights of expressive virtuosity, and with a chemistry that is obviously palpable to each. I have never seen Angel so great and so complete a dancer.

The balcony scene was monumental. So much has already been written of Diana's total use of her body, from legs raising beyond traditional heights yet always in service of her story, to those majestic arms piercing the pure night sky as if to reach the future, and hands which can only write epic poetry, the glorious back, the beauty of her heart-rending face. And Angel enthralled. Juliet stands in perfect stillness. The kiss. And time to leave back up the balcony stairs. She touches her lips, twice. Was it real? And a third time from the balcony. It was. They are.

The bad things happen.

The bedroom scene was overwhelming. She is hopeless, but there's dimension to this Juliet. Paris is less violent in Hallberg's interpretation. I think he's fully happy with this arranged marriage, really likes and cares for her, and is lost for why she's changed. Alone she gathers her inner strength, finding it in the very sorrow that had taken control of her. She'll find a way. She flies, her cape so lyric, to Friar Franklin. He tries to help...

In the tomb Hallberg lingers in true and pious grief. So right an interpretation in this, Diana's version of Juliet. So sad he must die. And Angel, an icon of grief, must follow. And Diana follows, but not before gathering his hand, to complete the circle from when first their eyes had become each other's. Through the first curtain they remain the same, as one in death. But next, transcending death, they are standing together and kiss.

They won.

It was a night of brilliant dancing. Herman Cornejo's Mercutio, as always. Sascha Radetsky a fine Benvolio. Gennadi Saveliev a beautifully measured interpretation of Tybalt. As Act 2 began (Act 1 ending with that balcony scene) the corps seemed somehow more alive.

Unfortunately there was no farewell for Erica Cornejo.

This dramatic ballerina Vishneva, who writes every performance new. Not since Makarova has such a one been with us.

Link to comment
Diana and Angel, a Partnership July 10

it really was a fabulous performance.

Everyone was so wonderful. there were no weak links at all.

Question--did Vishneva crash into the set as she was running off to see freddy franklin?

the stage went dark while she was still running, and then there seemed to be a loud thud.

Also, any clue what held up the last act?

Link to comment

Not the same passion or breathtaking abandon as Ferri and Bocca, but Vishneva and Corella did a pretty good job. Vishneva was dramatic, increasingly swept up by her love for Romeo and her determination to be with him forever. Alot of her performance seemed modeled on Ferri's, though, but not as hearfelt - Vishneva was more girlish than innocent, and her heartbreaking parting with Romeo during the bedroom scene didn't have as much wild grief nor did her death scene.

As for Angel, unfortunately, he is simply not the partner Bocca is. While Angel is wonderful dancing solo, his partnering in this particular ballet is weak. You can see him struggling, (sometimes shaking with the effort of the lifts); at times he didn't lift Vishneva high enough to show her positions adequately, while at others it looked as though he might drop her. When Vishneva would hurl herself at him I sometimes worried that he might not catch her properly. While the chemistry between the two seemed ok (and Angel's partnering of Vishneva was definately better than what he displayed on the DVD of "Romeo" with Ferri), he still has a ways to go to make the partnering look as effortless and exciting as Bocca did with Ferri. Given that so much of this ballet rests on the seamlessness of the partnering and lifts, this is critically important. Still in all, these two hopefully have many more years to perfect a partnership and this evening was a promising start.

Link to comment

Aurora, I think Vishneva did indeed crash into something. Did anyone else notice that in the second to last scene of Act III she was sporting a nasty scrap on her left shoulder and the leotard on her right knee was torn and bloodied? Aside from giving an outstanding performance, she certainly deserves the "Trooper of the Year" award. I didn't see how it happened, but only noticed the result. Wow!! What a performer.

Link to comment

The Corella/Vishneva pairing is fortuitous since Angel hasn't really developed a partnership with a ballerina who is on his level who is a physical match. The Angel/Paloma pairing didn't really develop and Paloma has actually looked better with Bocca, Gomes and Carreno. Xiomara Reyes is a charming partner in things like "La Fille Mal Gardee" but really doesn't have the star wattage that Diana has in the great ballerina roles like Giselle. I found Ananiashvili too mature for him and Gillian Murphy kind of overwhelmed him physically. Ferri and Corella were a good match physically but not on the same emotional or interpretive level and their pairing dimmed in comparison with the Bocca/Ferri symbiosis.

Vishneva, similar to her Giselle this season, brought a kind of willful abandon and restless rebellious spirit to her Juliet. She seemed a young girl who could not be contained by her family's hatred or society's dictums - a true free spirit. Angel also began to suggest a young man addicted to danger and easily bored. He seemed to stir up trouble if things were going too smoothly. His reckless pursuit of Juliet at the Capulet ball suggested someone who also had a disregard for public attitudes. The seamlessness of his dancing with endless chainés of pirouettes and turns never showed strain or pushing for effect. Your eye was drawn to Angel in the trio dances with Benvolio and Mercutio though his partners Radetsky and Cornejo are excellent technicians. Both Angel and Diana had dangerous moments of abandon together and solo. Her wild run offstage with her cape flowing behind her seems to have sent her into collision with a light bar or leg drop. Angel tore into the duel with Tybalt so fiercely that he bent his foil. This is the kind of electricity that makes for a memorable evening and redeems the ballet from its cumbersome padding and unwieldy length.

Of course this is the first time they have danced this ballet together and I hope they will continue to dance it - I thought the partnering was for the most part successful and tempermentally they worked off of each other very well. Give them a few more performances and the magic will deepen.

The cast surrounding them was very much the "A Team" at ABT. Veronika Part suggested the uneasy emotions of a woman asking her daughter to make the same compromises that marked her life - but why should Juliet be exempt from every woman's lot in marriage? Part's regal glamorous presence fixed the eyes and I was struck by her emotional force during the grief over Tybalt's body. Gennadi Saveliev has the Tybalt 'tude down - his death was in the good Bolshoi chew the scenery tradition. Freddie Franklin brought a spiritual center to Friar Lawrence, Victor Barbee was forceful as Capulet, Maria Bystrova a Rosaline preening with self regard and David Hallberg coolly suspicious under a noble exterior as Paris. Herman Cornejo was a lively, impish Mercutio who appropriated the Mandolin solo to great effect and rapturous audience response. A special word for Sascha Radetsky who held his own onstage with Corella and Cornejo, strong competition for even the greatest male dancer. He has really matured this season and can be given greater responsibilities in the future.

I find that MacMillan's choreography is exciting during the male classical variations and pas de deux's but really feels flat and padded in the corps choreography. I needn't reiterate that the endless horseplay with the harlots and lengthy swordfights and processions seem to get longer with each viewing. You kind of know that the Balcony scene pas de deux or some exciting solo is coming up, so you just hold on but I know why I avoided MacMillan's version of this ballet for ten years.

Link to comment

I think she did, indeed, crash. However, my daughter, who had her opera glasses, reports that her feet were perfectly pointed as she sailed into the wings before lights out.

We thought Vishneva was beautifully expressive. Beautiful!

Link to comment

I loved last night's performance and I loved the pairing of Vishneva/Corella!

While the dancing was marvelous, the drama and intensity were even more powerful. What I found very effective was the way both dancers were able to transform themselves during the night. In the first scene of Act I, Corella played Romeo as a carefree playboy - dancing and fighting in the streets of Verona with his friends until he comes face to face with true love. In Act II, after the ball, he was a changed man - then, realizing that maybe he might have imagined it all, he briefly goes back to his playboy ways until he sees the marriage procession and receives Juliet's letter.

In the second scene of Act I, Vishneva played Juliet as an innocent young girl - still fond of playing with dolls and sitting in her nurse's lap. Then, when Paris is presented to her, there is a brief flicker of womanhood. When she meets true love face to face, she becomes a woman. Vishenva displayed every emotion - love, despair, boredom, passion, even ecstasy.

We were given a wonderful first-rate cast last night! Herman Cornejo was his usual fantastic self as Mercutio - Sascha Radetsky as the third member of the Romeo/Mercutio/Benvolio trio - David Hallberg as Paris - Gennadi Saveliev as Tybalt - and Veronika Part and Victor Barbee as Lord and Lady Capulet.

But I was mesmerized by the Angel and Diana pairing. I saw them back in June in Giselle, so I was really anticipating something special and they delivered! Both of them were wonderful in their solos and both pas de deux - at the end of Act I and the beginning of Act III - were beautiful expressions of love. And what I found really heartbreaking was when Romeo tries to do a pas de deux with the (supposedly) dead Juliet and her body is limp the whole time - very powerful! This is a partnership that is going to develop beautifully!

Link to comment

I decided on the spur of the moment to attend opening night, and I'm very glad I did. However, I sat in the worst seat I've ever had at the very back of the family circle, so my comments should be read with that in mind. The production "read" but I missed the level of detail I usually enjoy. The company's investment in the work and acting ability was obvious.

I've taken some time to digest what I saw. I feel there is a grain of truth in Amour's comments about Corella, but I noticed it in his solo work. When Vishneva is really on, as she was last night, she has the ability to make completely controlled technique seem utterly spontaneous. Corella was not able to achieve that fusion on the same level she did. In the first act, I did notice the clean technique of Cornejo and Radetsky, while I also noticed sloppy fifths and an ugly line of the foot in arabesque from Corella. (I'm not sure I would have focused on it if I hadn't read some of the comments in earlier threads, and I felt better once we hit the balcony pas, where his naked joy shone through in his characterization of the impetuous lover.)

nysusan said: "His leaps soared but I don't think the quick Ashton changes of direction looked good on him."

sz said: "Corella is an explosive powerhouse, but in the last couple of years has lost much of his refinement and elegance especially needed for a role like Prince Siegfried."

The younger principals Gomes and Hallberg, with their different gifts, really bring a classical finish and polish to their work. I have seen Angel at a higher level when he has applied more of this element. I am not arguing that Romeo is a danseur noble role, but from what I could see his Romeo was a little too madcap and Mercutio-like. Romeo is a noble youth of Verona.

There is a fascinating quotation from Andrei in a very old Emploi thread:

Emploi is bringing the right relation between characters inside of one ballet... I'm not closing the door for any experiments in casting, but if you changed one person, you have to change all others as well, to find a right proportion in differences between them.

I liked all the ingredients in this ballet, but felt it added up to a very good rather than transcendent night at the ballet. If anything, Vishneva stole the show.

Link to comment

I agree with most of the praise for Vishneva & Corella that’s already been posted here - I thought Vishneva’s Juliet was beautifully danced and like her Giselle, a fascinating and highly individual performance.

beck_hen writes “When Vishneva is really on, as she was last night, she has the ability to make completely controlled technique seem utterly spontaneous” and that is a perfect description of her Juliet. She was riveting. Her portrayal was so well built, detailed and dramatic yet it appeared to be completely spontaneous. It was impossible to tear your eyes away from her. It was particularly rewarding to watch the interactions between her and Veronika Part as Lady Capulet. As drb pointed out we are very lucky here in NY to have in Vishneva and Part two ballerinas who “write each performance anew”. It is a rare and precious gift.

I really liked Vishneva and Corella together and hope this partnership continues. I saw him with Ferri last year (or maybe 2 years ago) and loved the boyish enthusiasm he brings to the role, his natural brio serves it well.

I have no criticism of Vishneva’s dancing here – this time out she was marvelous. The thing that struck me at the beginning was the expressive use of her arms, and how gawky her Juliet was in the early scenes. Even in the first scene with Paris, she really seemed to be a very wild, almost geeky teenager with none of her mother’s grandeur or social graces. She seemed very out of place in that household. When she met Romeo she was transformed and after their first discovery of each other there was an explosion of passion. In the bedroom scene it seemed like he had to literally escape from her, she was not about to let him go. Whereas Ferri's Juliet is girlish and innocent, Vishneva's is girlish and wild, completely unprepared for her role in society. I think I would have preferred a little more modulation in her characterization but on the other hand, perhaps the extreme and uninhibited nature of her performances are part of what make them so exciting.

ABT really did bring out the A team for the first R&J. As FauxPas noted, this can be a tough ballet to sit through. Often it feels like you’re just waiting for the next pas de deux but it’s much more enjoyable when all the roles are well done, from top to bottom!

Link to comment

So the New York Times posted a review.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/12/arts/dan...r=1&oref=slogin

On the whole its good and I agree with it.

But Jennifer Dunning clearly has something against Veronika Part (Who, to reiterate, was Lady Capulet) and has chosen to take it out in a particularly nasty way in my opinion.

If she had given Part a bad review--fine. I would disagree. But ok, its a review, it is opinion.

If she had omitted discussing the dancers besides the lead couple and an assorted one or two singled out for special praise or condemnation--again fine.

But instead, she listed the cast--including the nurse, including Lord Capulet, and omitted Lady Capulet/Veronika Part. In fact, in the thing that convinces me it was intended as a slap in the face, and not a simple accidental omission is that, in place of Lady Capulet she includes Lady Montague! A role that is on the stage for 5 minutes of the entire ballet (and Lord Montague is not mentioned)

I've cut and pasted that part of the review below:

-----

Herman Cornejo was a low-key Mercutio, impetuous in his darts and high-flung jumps but with a distracting mop of curls, in a lead cast completed by Gennadi Saveliev as a casually ruthless Tybalt, David Hallberg as a bemused Paris, and Sascha Radetsky (Benvolio), Susan Jones (Nurse), Frederic Franklin (Friar Laurence), Victor Barbee (Lord Capulet) and Jennifer Alexander (Lady Montague).

------

I mean, she even says "a lead cast completed by"...

Is anyone else upset by this? I know I like Part a lot, but even if I didn't, I think this is a pretty unpleasant tactic. Say what's wrong with her if you have a problem with her, but to eliminate her like this..

I know there are reviewers on here for various publications--what do you think about this? As I said, it is not that she only mentioned a few dancers--I've seen reviews like that--as you can see in the article, she claims to be giving the main cast. While Lady Capulet may not be the most important person in the ballet, she's a hell of a lot more important than Lady Montague, and at least as important as Lord Capulet and the Nurse...even as Paris....

The New York Times reviews just disgust me more and more.

Link to comment

I wouldn't take it so seriously, aurora. Do you know that the review appeared as Dunning wrote it? Maybe an editor cut it for reasons of space. Remember, the New York Times is a newspaper, with a finite number of pages pages of a certain size, a certain amount of which are reserved for the ads that support the enterprise, the rest of which is shared by various articles.

More Dunning reviews of Part:

May 26, 2005
: [As Queen of the Dryads] Veronika Part's expansive extensions and turns showed impressive control but also embodied the kind of perfect womanly love the Don was seeking.

June 10, 2005
: Veronika Part, new as Raymonda on Wednesday, found the melancholy and joy in the music and expressed it in nuanced dancing, particularly in her expressive upper body. Her soft, high split jumps were a special pleasure, as were what looked like small kisses timed perfectly in the culminating grand pas de deux.

November 1, 2005
:Irina Dvorovenko and Veronika Part completed the cast of new leads in "Les Sylphides." . . . [A] willowy Ms. Part danced big but soft in the Prelude. . . .

The performance on Thursday of George Balanchine's "Apollo" was more overtly dramatic than most. New and glamorous as Terpsichore, Ms. Part danced with an air of joyous complicity that suggested she knew she would win out as the favorite muse of Apollo . . . .

Sounds to me that Dunning has found much to admire in Part's dancing over time.

Link to comment
I wouldn't take it so seriously, aurora. Do you know that the review appeared as Dunning wrote it? Maybe an editor cut it for reasons of space. Remember, the New York Times is a newspaper, with a finite number of pages pages of a certain size, a certain amount of which are reserved for the ads that support the enterprise, the rest of which is shared by various articles.

Sounds to me that Dunning has found much to admire in Part's dancing over time.

Thanks for posting those snippets. You are certainly right about Dunning's prior treatment of Part.

And of course, as you rightly point out, I *don't* know that the review appeared as Dunning wrote it.

That said, howevever, I seriously doubt any editor would have cut some names out of a list of names, without checking with the author that those were the most appropriate ones to cut. I know editors, and in fact have been one in another context, and that would be really bad form.

And I can't think of any possible reason (good or bad!) for including Lady Montague in a list of leads from which Lady Capulet, the much larger part, is excluded. As I said, if it was just a random list of some other people she thought stood out especially, I would have no issue with it. But she STATES these people completed the lead cast...and L.Capulet is not included.

I am sorry for being so heated, although I am still rather peeved at this omission and would really like some real explanation of it.

The only person who could explain it to me however, is Ms Dunning herself, so that is unlikely to happen.

Link to comment

Did anyone see the Ferri/Carreno performance on Tuesday? I wonder what the chemistry of these two will be.

About Jennifer Dunning's review, although she can be truly nasty (and knows more about modern dance than ballet), I don't think too much should be read into her neglecting to mention Veronika Part. For my part, I found her statement about Herman Cornejo's "distracting mop of curls" not only wrong but utterly beside the point. (Since when is hairstyling something that merits discussion in a ballet review?) Unless it serves some purpose in illuminating the dance (for example, mentioning long legs and as contributing to a long line or a male danseur noble image, or discussing use of feet, hands, head, etc) discussing a dancer's facial or physicial attributes is almost always inappropriate and generally comes off as either cruel or lecherous.

As for Part's performance, I've often seen Georgina Parkinson as Lady Capulet and prefer her to Part in this character role, especially in her dramatization of anguish over Tybalt's death (which I found neither particularly moving nor genuine Monday night).

Link to comment
I don't think too much should be read into her neglecting to mention Veronika Part.

really? when she even listed who danced lady montague?

For my part, I found her statement about Herman Cornejo's "distracting mop of curls" not only wrong but utterly beside the point. (Since when is hairstyling something that merits discussion in a ballet review?) Unless it serves some purpose in illuminating the dance (for example, mentioning long legs and as contributing to a long line or a male danseur noble image, or discussing use of feet, hands, head, etc) discussing a dancer's facial or physicial attributes is almost always inappropriate and generally comes off as either cruel or lecherous.

I agree totally on this. Also, they are supposed to be a bunch of kids--I didn't think his hair WAS inappropriate anyway.

As for Part's performance, I've often seen Georgina Parkinson as Lady Capulet and prefer her to Part in this character role, especially in her dramatization of anguish over Tybalt's death (which I found neither particularly moving nor genuine Monday night).

I disagree, but I totally respect your right to say it! ;) I may like Part, but I don't mind criticism of her, I just thought not mentioning her when Lady M was mentioned and she said she was listing the main cast was wrong. :)

Link to comment
I disagree, but I totally respect your right to say it! ;) I may like Part, but I don't mind criticism of her, I just thought not mentioning her when Lady M was mentioned and she said she was listing the main cast was wrong. :)

What I find most appalling is that ABT still has her dancing these small parts. :)

Link to comment

Since most of the comments linger on the passion and abandon of MacMillan's ballet, I could not help wondering what today's audiences would make of Antony tudor's R&J. It has been on my mind because I recently saw a clip of Nora Kaye and Hugh Laing in the bedroom scene; it depicted the time of their parting. As Laing was leaving he suddenly lay down on the floor on his back, and Kaye bent over his face and kissed him. He arose and stoically tried to walk off---but he stopped ever so briefly and looked over his shoulder at the empty bed...a-hh only in Tudor.

Link to comment

Any opinions about the casts since monday night? I'm so eager to hear how they've been!

There was a tantalizing mention of the Ferri/Carreno performance on tuesday, but no more.

How about Reyes and Corella on Weds matinee? I can't really imagine her in this role--did anyone see it? How was their connection compared to Corella and Vishneva?

What about Hallberg and Herrera on weds night? I would love to see him as Romeo but am unsure about her as Juliet. Opinions?

Link to comment
Since most of the comments linger on the passion and abandon of MacMillan's ballet, I could not help wondering what today's audiences would make of Antony tudor's R&J. It has been on my mind because I recently saw a clip of Nora Kaye and Hugh Laing in the bedroom scene; it depicted the time of their parting. As Laing was leaving he suddenly lay down on the floor on his back, and Kaye bent over his face and kissed him. He arose and stoically tried to walk off---but he stopped ever so briefly and looked over his shoulder at the empty bed...a-hh only in Tudor.

Well I wish I could remember the piece more clearly but I can't. Of what I do remember , it was not as

narrative as Macmillan's. It was more .....well, like Tudor, lots of very characteristic movements.

The costumes and scenery were again, very characteric of Eugene Berman. A number of his productions were still active at the Met Opera then, about 35 years ago. Juliet had an absolutely beautiful cloak.

It is MUCH shorter than Macmillan, a bit less than an hour to music by Delius.

My sightings of this were in the early 70s; I saw Makarova with John Prinz and Fracci with ... I can't remember.

I think it would be a leap for todays audiences, used to versions with the

Prokoviev music to come to this. But I though it was beautiful (I remember that more clearly than I remember why!)

Richard

Link to comment

Thanks mmurphy20. I've looked back at all your posts and enjoyed them, particularly the discussion of your need for creative outlets outside of corps work. I've experienced something similar in my own field of graphic design—there is a lot of executing other people's ideas before you get to the good stuff.

I actually find the end of the ballet very jarring compared to the play. I keep expecting the final resolution where the lovers and Paris are discovered by the prince, their families and a sorrowful, guilty Friar Laurence.

Prince:

Where be these enemies? Capulet, Montague,

See what a scourge is laid upon your hate,

That heaven finds means to kill your joys with love.

And I, for winking at your discords, too

Have lost a brace of kinsmen. All are punished.

This is a zoom out to the big picture, the social context. I understand that ending after the suicides is a theatrical high note, with much applause, but I still miss this period, even though it is referenced in the pile of bodies in the first scene.

Hallberg and Herrera did have the chemistry nysusan noticed between them in Corsaire. I'll report back on that.

I would also like to see some of the other R&Js, the Tudor and the Ashton. I think they could work at City Center, but confusion in the advertising would be a problem. They might need to be alternatively titled, since general audiences would certainly assume it was the Macmillan, and probably be unhappy with anything else.

Link to comment

I would like to buy standing room tickets in the orchestra for Saturday night's performance of Romeo and Juliet. Do these go on sale on Saturday morning at 10:00am at the Met Opera box office? Would you recommend going much earlier than 10:00am to stand in line?

Link to comment

I have had no trouble buying my standing room a few minutes before curtain, although I have not bought for the big "hot ticket" events, such as Bocca's appearances or Vishneva's Giselle. Also, I buy in the Dress Circle, and I don't know how quickly Orchestra standing normally sells. If you want to buy an orchestra stand, you should know that it is arranged for three rows of standees. The spots are assigned, and only numbers 1-40 are the front row. You can ask what number at the box office.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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