Patti Lupone- Seven Deadly Sins at NYCB
Posted 08 March 2010 - 02:46 PM
Posted 08 March 2010 - 02:55 PM
Posted 08 March 2010 - 02:59 PM
Posted 08 March 2010 - 04:39 PM
When San Francisco Ballet revived it a few years later, the choreography was by Lew Christensen. So, turning the project over to a new choreographer, in this case Taylor-Corbet, is not without precedent.
Maybe every generation needs to invent its own way of presenting this score and story. An evening devoted to the exploration of Pride, Anger, Avarice, Envy, Gluttony, Lust, and Sloth will always have relevance.
LuPone sounds like a great choice for Lenya's role. I can see her prowling the stage like a panther. (Lenya did more in the way of insinuating herself here and there.) Who should dance Allegra Kent's role? You need someone who can make "child-like" and "innocent" really interesting, especially as she keeps bouncing around from one bad experience to another. As for the other roles: is there anyone at the NYCB today particularly good at conveying menace and/or decadence?
Questions: Was Balanchine's version ever revived? Does anyone know whether a video record of it survives?
Here's John Martin's 1958 review in the NY Times:
Posted 08 March 2010 - 05:32 PM
LuPone sounds like a great choice for Lenya's role. I can see her prowling the stage like a panther. (Lenya did more in the way of insinuating herself here and there.)
Yes, and she will surely be more effective than Bette Midler could have ever been. It's a far more powerful vocal instrument, as the TV 'Gypsy' (with Midler, who didn't sing those kinds of songs well IMO) and the recent 2007-2009 B'way revival of 'Gypsy' with Lupone prove.
As for abatt's "ceating a lot of media attention for the project', I guess so, but I was surprised '
'Gypsy' didn't run a full year on B'way, even given the panics of 2008-9. She's powerful, but not 'Streisand-powerful'. It could be really good, though.l
Posted 08 March 2010 - 06:39 PM
I assume there is no way to revive the Balanchine? What a shame--I remember NYCB was supposed to revive it one year with Bette Midler and it fell through...(I believe Balanchine was still alive at that time.) Oh well...It's still an intriguing idea, likely good box office, and yet definitely remains within the company's larger tradition.
It is a shame. Balanchine's genius didn't lie only in steps, and his staging would have been interesting to see. As you say he did want to revive it with Midler and von Aroldingen, so he must have thought well of it himself (or had new ideas for it). No harm in a new production with new choreography, though.
She's powerful, but not 'Streisand-powerful'.
I agree. I don't think anyone who doesn't follow the theater knows much about LuPone. But it's a New York production, so her presence will have local interest.
Posted 09 March 2010 - 04:40 AM
Posted 09 March 2010 - 05:29 AM
I had heard about Midler before but didn't know about Aroldingen Since Aroldingen was a dancer about as far from Kent in look, personality, and movement style as you can get, I wonder what Balanchine was thinking. Perhaps Aroldingen as Anna I and Midler as Anna II?
Balanchine saw things in Von Aroldingen that most people didn't, so who knows? I do seem to recall reading an interview with her where Balanchine told her she was one of the only one of his dancers who could act. But I agree it would have been a far different look than when Kent was dancing it.
I would have preferred to have a revival of Balanchine's though. I would much rather have an imperfectly remembered Balanchine than a new version by a different choreographer. Having said that I wish Taylor-Corbet the best and hope she has a success with it.
I'm thinking of two very different dancers for Anna 2. Janie Taylor and Tiler Peck.
Posted 09 March 2010 - 11:14 AM
I can go with perky's suggestions and add Kathryn Morgan.
Who should dance Allegra Kent's role? You need someone who can make "child-like" and "innocent" really interesting, especially as she keeps bouncing around from one bad experience to another.
Sara Mearns can convey anything and everything. I think Ashley Bouder would have a field day with it.
As for the other roles: is there anyone at the NYCB today particularly good at conveying menace and/or decadence?
Posted 09 March 2010 - 11:22 AM
Balanchine saw things in Von Aroldingen that most people didn't, so who knows? I do seem to recall reading an interview with her where Balanchine told her she was one of the only one of his dancers who could act.
That's very interesting and explains a lot. Because even in just the video of 'Davidsbundlertanze', she is the most deeply affecting in that sense. Kind of Brahmsian-warm maybe? But also, I liked her Siren a lot, and her 'Ballet Imperial' was full of lilt-- a consummate professional, she displayed this lilt in the performance the night Balanchine died. May have to do with having such a great face though, too, which she could use to good advantage without ever going into the cheap effects people complain about with so many grinning dancers these days. But I've also never thought of Suzanne Farrell as having a great acting gift, although a lot of emotion did get unleashed sometimes, as in 'La Valse', but it's still more because of the power of the movement, or that's my impression.
Posted 09 March 2010 - 11:44 AM
Posted 09 March 2010 - 07:24 PM
Posted 09 March 2010 - 08:14 PM
Balanchine STRONGLY discouraged his dancers from 'acting', as is extremely well known, and anyone who has seen Farrell in full-lengths outside NYCB has seen that her 'acting' ability was quite formidable.
The only thing I have seen Farrell do outside NYCB was 'Nijinsky, Clown de Dieu', but I doubt that's what you mean. I do remember her entrance as being especially striking, but I don't know whether she was quite yet fully dancing, or whether you might just call that presence, which was indeed very commanding, 'acting'. As for the rest of that piece, I still saw great dancing, if there was 'formidable acting', you can explain it to me, I never noticed her being especially theatrical in it; it was more like a hallucinatiion of limbs all over the place, but that's dance. So tell me what you mean. I think the face plays a more important part in acting than Farrell tended to use. In fact, I thought that was what the power was very often: That the face seemed quiet and in repose most of the time, which is lovely, but the rest of the range of expression has to be covered too, and I thought she was especially singular in the way that the rest of the body conveyed the more tumultuous things. Melissa Hayden, in the only performance I ever saw her in, in 'Balanchine's Swan Lake', seemed much more theatrical and something of an actress as well as great dancer. But from 'Nijinsky' alone, I saw 'formidable dancing', but not 'formidable acting'. Maybe you're talking about what she did with NBoC, wasn't there a 'Swan Lake'? I think people have talked about it here.
Posted 09 March 2010 - 11:09 PM
I do seem to recall reading an interview with her where Balanchine told her she was one of the only one of his dancers who could act.
I think that Karin von Aroldingen in her interview in "I Remember Balanchine" (along with "Balanchine's Tchaikovsky," very essential reading) says Balanchine called her "the actress," which is different than acting -- more a potential and a characteristic. ... And, at least in clips, Lenya doesn't act, she seems to simply possess the stage.
Posted 10 March 2010 - 07:38 AM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
Help support Ballet Alert! and Ballet Talk for Dancers year round by using this search box for your amazon.com purchases (adblockers may block display):