bart Posted November 20, 2008 Share Posted November 20, 2008 On another thread, we've been discussing the "lost" Tudor Romeo and Juliet. Now Joan Acocella has an article in the November 17 issue of The New Yorker: http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/danc...ancing_acocella In a way, Tudor was left behind by history. In the ninetten-fifties, American dance went abstract, and abstraction was not his metier -- he specialized in "psychological" story ballets. Acocella praises ABT's Jardin aux Lilas. She has questions about their Pillar of Fire. And she discusses -- for those who've been following the R&J thread, the Tudor version, including the performances of Gilliam Murphy and Xiomara Reyes as the heroine. She compares the Tudor with the MacMillan and finds that (... well ... you have to read the article to discover which she prefers). Accocella also raises the question we ourselves have raised: Why can't A.B.T. revive the whole ballet.? Any thoughts? Link to comment
Recommended Posts