123 replies to this topic

[cubanmiamiboy]

Here are a couple of clips from Act I of the Cuban version that I often refer to, which "does it" for me.  The first clips shows Clara and the Nutcracker dancing just before the Snow Scene.  The second one is the beginning of Act II, including the Nutcracker's "mime".  

[MinkusPugni]

Mel Johnson, on Dec 28 2008, 12:22 PM, said:

However, remember, Stanislava Belinskaya was 12.  Know who she was?  The original Clara.  Infantilizing adults is not a comfortable evening's watching, for me.

I definitely agree about not having adults play children... but isn't infantilizing adults something we do in ballet literally all the time. Aren't some of the great parts in ballet infantilized adults? Swanhilda...? Lise...? Aurora...? Giselle...?

Just thought I'd bring up the point.

[cubanmiamiboy]

MinkusPugni, on Dec 27 2008, 11:53 PM, said:

Mel Johnson, on Dec 28 2008, 12:22 PM, said:

However, remember, Stanislava Belinskaya was 12.  Know who she was?  The original Clara.  Infantilizing adults is not a comfortable evening's watching, for me.

I definitely agree about not having adults play children... but isn't infantilizing adults something we do in ballet literally all the time. Aren't some of the great parts in ballet infantilized adults? Swanhilda...? Lise...? Aurora...? Giselle...?

Yes, we do...to the extent that we don't care anymore how "young" is, in the libretto  the "young" Giselle, for example.  I bet that she's no more than 14 or 15...hence...a kid, and then I don't think non 14 y.o would be allowed to interpret Giselle in a respectable Company

[GWTW]

Back to the topic - Balanchine's version of The Nutcracker is the only major version I have seen live, and it is enchanting in every possible sense of the word. Both the Pennsylvania Ballet and NYCB productions are glorious. It wouldn't be overstating it to say that my most cherished memories of a 5 year stay in the US are of Balanchine's The Nutcracker.  

[Mel Johnson]

volcanohunter, on Dec 27 2008, 11:57 PM, said:

I love the Balanchine version. I was about to write "unequivocally," except that I've never cared for the extended sequence with Marie's bed going round and round the stage. I find the rest completely magical and was able to convert one self-described ballet hater into a Balanchine lover by taking him to a performance of Mr. B's Nutcracker. When a grown man turns to you in the middle of the battle scene with a seven-year-old's look of enchantment on his face, you know that the ballet's "done it" for him.

That bed shtick is the source of a lot of controversy.  I don't have as much a problem with it as I do with the SNOW that starts to fall in the parlor before the tree and the French doors fly out.  Suddenly, there's a big hole in the roof?  

Volcanohunter describes a situation I went through with my own father, who went to ballets and operas and plays, and knew all about "stage magic", but at the transformations in Act I, tears were rolling down his cheeks.  "I've seen shows before, but this...this is SO MUCH!  Better than the movies!"  He even gave a startled "OH!" when the sleigh flies out at the end.

[Goldfish17]

GWTW, on Dec 28 2008, 03:31 AM, said:

Back to the topic - Balanchine's version of The Nutcracker is the only major version I have seen live, and it is enchanting in every possible sense of the word.

I saw my first Nutcracker  at Bolshoi Theater in Moscow and it still appears to me  "enchanting in every possible sense of the word".
It was Grigorovich's version where Mary and Nutcracker are danced by adults.
GB Nutcracker was the first ballet I saw when I came to New York - I was very surprised (if not shocked) to see no dancing in Act I. I was wondering if this is going to be like that for the rest of the ballet and was thinking about leaving.
Over time I grew into loving GB Nutcracker, but I still find Act I quite boring and feel that majical music is being "waisted"

[Mel Johnson]

But remember, Act I before the transformation is set in "the real world", and the dancers dance real, if idealized versions of social dances of the mid-nineteenth century.  There is much mime in Act I, intercut with dance steps.  It's part of the production sensibility of the original Nutcracker, and when you stop to think, much of the Classico-Romantic repertoire.  Giselle dances and mimes simultaneously, so does the Sylphide.  Replacing mime with technical dancing does many works a grave disservice, in my opinion.

[Goldfish17]

Mel Johnson, on Dec 28 2008, 07:54 AM, said:

But remember, Act I before the transformation is set in "the real world", and the dancers dance real, if idealized versions of social dances of the mid-nineteenth century.  There is much mime in Act I, intercut with dance steps.  It's part of the production sensibility of the original Nutcracker, and when you stop to think, much of the Classico-Romantic repertoire.  Giselle dances and mimes simultaneously, so does the Sylphide.  Replacing mime with technical dancing does many works a grave disservice, in my opinion.

I agree - but where is the dancing AFTER transformation, before the Snow?  
Volcanohunter already mentioned Mary's bed going round and round on stage..

I am wondering - is there a version where Mary is being danced by a child before transformation and as adult dancer after?

[Mel Johnson]

Remember, there are two major transformations - the part where the tree grows (Clara/Masha shrinks), and the part where the stage becomes the fir forest.  With each, we get farther and farther into fantasy until we are in the realm of Fulltime Magic!  The Battle with the Mice is a highly choreographed melée, and the original score even has visual cues written on it, apparently by Drigo.  "Mouse picks up soldier.  Turns him upside down.  Eats him."   I wish that section of what Ivanov staged had actually been notated, but having the cues is valuable.  There was even apparently a bit of business where the Nutcracker organizes some of the toys and dolls into army surgeons and nurses.  I'd purely LOVE to see what he did with that!  

Petipa wrote the choreographic script for the work, and he shrewdly made the pre-transformation in the world of the mundane.  Originally, he had an idea for more than just the Harlequin and Columbine dolls and the soldier or devil - depending on the version - as divertissement (there was even supposed to be a cancan - the tarantella from this section ended up as the male variation in the pas de deux) in order to provide more technical dancing, but I think he was wise to segregate the real and the magic in order to increase the latter's theatrical impact!

[rg]

re: the fir forest transformation, i was struck by the sketch in Wiley's Ivanov study to see that the artisan involved was a not just a scenic designer but one of the theater's machinists, thus making the transformation perhaps more than just a change of backdrops.

[Mel Johnson]

Yes, indeed!   I have a feeling that the transformations may have employed the full arsenal of the Maryinsky's armamentarium, with sets and props flying, running, and trapping all over the stage (and watch out backstage!)

[rg]

also: Mel, are you aware of any initially proposed divertissement of 'cream pastries' in act 2 which was then dropped?
the only 'ref.' to this i've ever seen to such a detail was in a translation of a Russian 'paper' about NUTCRACKER in a Petipa Study supplement to a Russian language ballet magazine; the writer, presumably something of researcher and historian, didn't give a source for this statement. i'd never encountered this detail before or since. have you?

[Mel Johnson]

I can't say that I've ever seen that, but Robert Joffrey used to talk of soft candy (nougats) as the theme for the Trepak.  Balanchine chose stick candy, which doesn't travel well, for his Danse Russe, so naturally, they have to be Candy Canes.  Joffrey in his personal collection had a pair of great blousy trousers that were used by the Ballet Russe for their version of the Russian Dance.

[Anthony_NYC]

volcanohunter, on Dec 27 2008, 11:57 PM, said:

I love the Balanchine version. I was about to write "unequivocally," except that I've never cared for the extended sequence with Marie's bed going round and round the stage. I find the rest completely magical and was able to convert one self-described ballet hater into a Balanchine lover by taking him to a performance of Mr. B's Nutcracker. When a grown man turns to you in the middle of the battle scene with a seven-year-old's look of enchantment on his face, you know that the ballet's "done it" for him.

There's a part of me that loves the fact that the staging hasn't been updated in decades. That way, we respond emotionally to the magic of the *drama* rather than thinking "Wow!" as we watch a bunch of impressive modern stage mechanics. (After decades of almost annual NYCB Nutcracker attendance, I still find myself holding my breath for long stretches from the transformation scene through to the end of the act. I feel like I believe in it as absolutely as any child does.) However, I finally have to admit that I rather wish they would tinker--very, very carefully, because this is holy to many of us!--with the transition to the snow scene. It looks clunky, the Christmas tree hoisted unceremoniously into the flies ("So it was fake after all!"), the gaping hole it leaves behind in the stage, the forest just dropped into place. Fortunately, there is glorious music to lose oneself in, but nevertheless I find it a wee bit difficult to maintain my suspension of disbelief. While I agree the movie of this production is unsatisfactory--with little of the magic it has on stage, it remains almost completely unmoving--at least they did change this one moment for the cameras (not well enough, though). Maybe a scrim with a film projection of some kind?

About children playing the leads: Friends of mine who want to get right to the dancing roll their eyes, but I just adore it. Nutcracker is supposed to be for kids, and as everybody with kids knows, having children on stage engages an audience of children like nothing else. Also, part of the fun of seeing Nutcracker live is hearing the children in the audience applauding, laughing, talking excitedly. (This being New York, one can even occasionally hear a wolf whistle when Coffee dances.) Also, in Balanchine's version, putting children in the leads removes any whiff of sentimentality from the production. It's precisely that clear, cool classicism that I find so incredibly moving and that gives this production its enormous staying power, year after year, decade after decade.

[cubanmiamiboy]

Many times I’ve been backstage post performance and I've been amazed at how young and petite many- (MANY)-dancers look, both females and males.  It is not hard to find dancers who look way younger than their real age- (e.g.- Kirkland, Daniil Simkin).  The thing with Clara and the ballet is that in order for the character not to look weird there should be a formula to be followed in where: 1-She is always chosen to be portrayed by a close to the character's age ballerina- (I would say no more than 17/18 y.o), and 2-Because of number 1 reason, this character won't be a Principal dancer and will be away from the difficulty of the Act II PDD but at the same time she will have enough technique to go on pointe on Act I and make the whole thing more dancing oriented.  None of the this was applicable to Kirkland).  I totally agree that having a 40 y.o ballerina in a little girl nightgown doesn’t look right- (and ditto with the party kids, who also should be real dancers, but in their teen years).  The main problem is that with all the pastiches that this ballet has been subjected to, many stagers want to have Clara/Marie/Masha do the Act II PDD, which only can happen with a grown up ballerina.  
Infantilizing adults is a variable concept.  As I said earlier, a girl can be physically able to marry and procreate as early as 12 y.o.  Ditto with boys, whereas at the same time some women of 15,16 are still playing with Barbie dolls.  A curious thing is that the opposite idea, the pageant competitions, where REAL girls- (7,8,9 y.o)-are told to show of their bodies in full makeup like a Vegas showgirl- (yes…JonBenet Ramsey, RIP)-doesn’t seem to be that shocking to many standards.