31 replies to this topic

[balanchinette]

jsmu, on Mar 9 2010, 10:24 PM, said:

she has a certain opaqueness which is the opposite of Kent's incredible transparency, and although she is a good dancer I am completely nonplussed at the showers of hosannas rained on her of late--to my mind Reichlen, for example,  is so vastly superior in every respect that there is no comparison.

I completely agree, jsmu.  I am one of the seeming few who still doesn't get what all the Mearns hoopla is about, and I think Reichlen is one of City Ballet's best (and most underrated).  I would love to see Reichlen do Diamonds.

[bart]

Quote

Balanchine STRONGLY discouraged his dancers from 'acting', as is extremely well known,

I agree entirely with Cargill's response to this.  7 Deadly Sins is an example of the sub-genre of Balanchine theater pieces. Anna II was NOT a dance role in any conventional sense.  The character must act, though using mimetic and dance movement.  More, she must be able to hold the spotlight even when a vast amount of interesting (or distracting, depending on your point of view) stuff is going on around her.  

Quote

Fortunately, no one will have to live up to Kent (an impossible task), as this will not be the Balanchine choreography--a great pity. I cannot imagine a choreographer as facile and shallow as Taylor-Corbett being up to the esthetic demands of a dark, mordant, somber period piece like The Seven Deadly Sins.

Once again, it's necessary to stress that that the Anna II of Balanchine's 7 Deadly Sins was NOT a dancer role, much less a "Balanchine dancer" role.  Kent was brilliant because of her personality and certain qualities of movement that had little to do with neoclassical ballet.

Many BT members have access to Nancy Reynolds' Repertory in Review.  On pp. 193-94 there are 3 photos of Kent in various aspects of the Anna II role.  They do capture the qualities she brought to this role, and why she was mesmerizing in it.  

About the work itself --  The orgins of 7 Deadly Sins put it in the tradition of gesamtkunstwerk.  Balanchine's version did, of course,  contain elements that were "dark, mordant" and "period."  (I object to "somber.")  There were many  examples of comedy (absurdist as well as black), social satire, anger, acerbic commentary (mainly from Anna I), etc.  "Somber" this piece was not.

On top of that, there is a clear moral point of view, and one has its own universality.   In almost any period of human history you can find examples of the terrible things that a heartless, amoral, dishonest, and occasionally sanctimonious society does to ordinary people.  All of this is very clear from the music and the libretto (the latter very accessible to the audience in the Kallman/Audan translation) as well as in Balanchine's staging.  For this new revival, we don't need a faithful reconstruction a la The Green Table (wonderful though that is).  We DO need an artistic team with total commitment to the idea that the work still has relevance in our own day. I hope the creators of the 2011 version will make changes in period and setting, while preserving of course the artistic and moral heart of the work.  

I see no reason why Ms. Taylor-Corbet shouldn't do a wonderful job.  She might even wish to make Anna II more of a dance role, and why not?  (On the other hand, we might want to look warily in the direction of Peter Martins, what with his variable and sometimes questionable taste when it comes to reimagining works of art. )

[perky]

I think the quality that Allegra had in this ballet was very unique to her. A sort of knowing, sexy kittenish quality. Not a rank innocent by any means but not overtly aware either. I've never seen the ballet, just basing my opinion on various sources such as Repertory In Review and Kent's own autobiography.

[bart]

perky, on Mar 11 2010, 08:36 AM, said:

I think the quality that Allegra had in this ballet was very unique to her. A sort of knowing, sexy kittenish quality. Not a rank innocent by any means but not overtly aware either.

That's perfect, perky.   Thanks for amending my earlier characterization.  My memories are partial, but contain a lot of details filtered through the astonished mind of a teenager.     The sexiness was there and it was NOT the standard 50s version of sexiness available to me in my suburban high school.  

Perhaps "knowing-and-not-knowing" would be an even better description.      

[perky]

bart, on Mar 11 2010, 08:45 AM, said:

perky, on Mar 11 2010, 08:36 AM, said:

I think the quality that Allegra had in this ballet was very unique to her. A sort of knowing, sexy kittenish quality. Not a rank innocent by any means but not overtly aware either.

That's perfect, perky.   Thanks for amending my earlier characterization.  My memories are partial, but contain a lot of details filtered through the astonished mind of a teenager.     The sexiness was there and it was NOT the standard 50s version of sexiness available to me in my suburban high school.  

Perhaps "knowing-and-not-knowing" would be an even better description.      

If she made you so gaga as a teenager imagine how Kent made Mr. B. feel?   

[Ambonnay]

The concept of seven deadly sins as a ballet sounds interesting -- especially how gluttony will be portrayed.  I looked on the Lincoln Center website, and did not see this performance on the NYC Ballet calendar.  Can somebody help me figure out when individual tickets to the seven deadly sins performance would become available, and why the performance does not seem to be on the spring NYC Ballet calendar?

[RUKen]

Ambonnay, on Mar 31 2010, 06:23 AM, said:

The concept of seven deadly sins as a ballet sounds interesting -- especially how gluttony will be portrayed.  I looked on the Lincoln Center website, and did not see this performance on the NYC Ballet calendar.  Can somebody help me figure out when individual tickets to the seven deadly sins performance would become available, and why the performance does not seem to be on the spring NYC Ballet calendar?

The performances are planned for the Spring 2011 season.

[abatt]

Here's a link to an article in the NY Times about The Seven Deadly Sins:


http://www.nytimes.c...pring-gala.html

[SingerWhoMoves]

Went to the NYCB box office today and was kinda shocked that they are charging more for The Seven Deadly Sins... $10 additional per ticket. :-(  Also- the gentleman at the box office said that it was selling very well and was sure to sell out.

[Slant]

SingerWhoMoves, on 06 May 2011 - 02:36 PM, said:

Went to the NYCB box office today and was kinda shocked that they are charging more for The Seven Deadly Sins... $10 additional per ticket. :-(  Also- the gentleman at the box office said that it was selling very well and was sure to sell out.

Wait till you see what they will charge in the fall for Sir Paul and Peter's collaboration.

[abatt]

Apart from raising prices for performances that are "hot" tickets (Swan Lake in the winter, Seven Deadly Sins program), they are now adding a $2.00 "facility charge" to every ticket sold to every performance.  I guess it was only a matter of time until they did that.  The Met Opera and Philharmonic have been doing that for a few years.

[abatt]

If anyone is interested, the libretto for the Seven Deadly Sins is now available on the NYCB website. There is a link on the homepage.

[carbro]

SingerWhoMoves, on 06 May 2011 - 02:36 PM, said:

Went to the NYCB box office today and was kinda shocked that they are charging more for The Seven Deadly Sins... $10 additional per ticket. :-(  Also- the gentleman at the box office said that it was selling very well and was sure to sell out.

Nor are they honoring 4th Ring Society discounts. .  Also, why not make the "premium" increase progressive, so that those who can afford the higher priced locations get a steeper increase, and a smaller one for those who scrape money up for their top-of-the-house seats?

I had assumed I'd see the premiering ballet once, at least to see whether it's awful or not.  I particularly resent that there are no Vienna Waltzes without Seven Deadly Sins also on the program.  I've been looking forward to seeing VW, hoping to get both casts.  It ain't gonna happen this spring.  

Also, these ticket prices were changed after having been advertised at the same price as tickets for other non-gala programs.  Is increasing them after others have already bought at published, lower prices even legal?  I'm thinking of calling the NYC Department of Consumer Affairs, which licenses box offices.

abatt, on 09 May 2011 - 06:11 AM, said:

[T]hey are now adding a $2.00 "facility charge" to every ticket sold to every performance.

It's a small step away from bait-and-switch pricing.  The first time I was hit with this at NYCB (I had already bought my facility-fee-added Royal Danish Ballet Tickets), I said to the guy in the box office, "I'm not blaming you, but this is so dishonest.  They should just fold it into the price of the ticket and make that the face value."  He agreed.

[abatt]

Carbro, I had the same reaction when I first encountered this pricing issue with tickets I wanted to purchase at the Joyce Theater a few months ago.  The price they wanted to charge me at the box office for the ticket was higher than the price they published in the brochure.  However, the brochure contained a small asterisk, and in fine print the booklet stated that prices were subject to change after a specific date.  This is "variable" or "dynamic" or "demand based" ticket pricing, and it appears to be legal as long as there is  a statement in the printed materials that prices are subject to change, or words to that effect.  (By the way, I did not buy the Joyce tickets as a way of protesting the policy.) Ticketmaster is also starting to do this with events they sell.  It's pretty outrageous, in my opinion.  I haven't checked the fine print in the current NYCB brochure.

[richard53dog]

abatt, on 11 May 2011 - 01:41 PM, said:

Carbro, I had the same reaction when I first encountered this pricing issue with tickets I wanted to purchase at the Joyce Theater a few months ago.  The price they wanted to charge me at the box office for the ticket was higher than the price they published in the brochure.  However, the brochure contained a small asterisk, and in fine print the booklet stated that prices were subject to change after a specific date.  This is "variable" or "dynamic" or "demand based" ticket pricing, and it appears to be legal as long as there is  a statement in the printed materials that prices are subject to change, or words to that effect.  (By the way, I did not buy the Joyce tickets as a way of protesting the policy.) Ticketmaster is also starting to do this with events they sell.  It's pretty outrageous, in my opinion.  I haven't checked the fine print in the current NYCB brochure.

Slightly   but in a way not, ABT is advertising that their prices ]may increase after MAy 2. I don't know if they actually raised them but it seems a bit of CYA in case sales are brisk and they want to cash in.