Jump to content


Balanchine Celeb #1 (Joffrey is THE HIT!)


  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#31 Guest_Barb_*

Guest_Barb_*
  • Unregistered / Not Logged In

Posted 18 September 2000 - 04:40 PM

Originally posted by kfw:

It was sad to see Franklin Gamero and Illiana Lopez struggling a bit in Stars and Stripes, they’ve always made such a wonderful couple.


Don't be sad about that performance...feel blessed to have witnessed one of those performances that illustrates perfectly the spirit with which people approach their art, and the "show must go on" mentality that is to be applauded and at the same time avoided for the safety of the dancers. A potentially frightening injury was incurred during the performance, and yet, the performance was completed.

Go see them again, they'll be wonderful again.

#32 Mel Johnson

Mel Johnson

    Diamonds Circle

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,311 posts

Posted 18 September 2000 - 06:31 PM

In regard to what the Gigue is doing where it is: It makes sense to me because Tchaikovsky put it there, and while Balanchine might occasionally play with the order of a musical suite, or even a symphony, he usually left well enough alone!

#33 kfw

kfw

    Sapphire Circle

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,237 posts

Posted 18 September 2000 - 07:32 PM

Barb, thanks for that information. And I'll go see them as long as they perform, they have a wonderful spirit Posted Image

Mel, I wouldn't seriously think to critique Pyotr Tchaikovsky or George Balanchine, no siree! But your comments are ironic because of course Balanchine did rearrange the order of movements in Mozartiana. In the suite as written, the Preghiera is 3rd. In any case, it isn't the music for the Gigue that jars me, it's the choreography. Maybe I should go back and read and think about Croce on this, she has some explanation for who that guy is and what his relation to the other principals is. But I don't! Thanks for your thoughts though.

#34 Mel Johnson

Mel Johnson

    Diamonds Circle

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,311 posts

Posted 18 September 2000 - 08:17 PM

OK, but at least he didn't drop it the way he did with the first movement of "Scotch Symphony".

#35 Alexandra

Alexandra

    Board Founder

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,242 posts

Posted 18 September 2000 - 08:23 PM

The Bolshoi Giguer was a bit more....emphatic than the original. I don't think the different people are actually "characters" -- it's more like a poem -- but as I remember Croce's interpretation (and this probably wasn't just a stab in the dark) it was that the Man in Black was/symbolized/suggested the playful, childlike nature of Mozart (which is why he dances with the children), while the Man in White was/symbolized/suggested the celestial talent (he certainly was celestial when Andersen danced it. It was just pure lightness, speed and flow.)

I missed the lavender/purple vest (I didn't rememger it as magenta). I thought the colors -- the careful arrangement of black, white, black-over-white was intentional, and a part of the ballet, and so the purple fit in, not only as the one flash of color, but also perhaps the same significance that purple has in the liturgical character (it's one step under mourning, the color of Lent).

#36 Juliet

Juliet

    Silver Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 720 posts

Posted 18 September 2000 - 09:25 PM

It's magenta, all right, in its current incarnation. I could understand purple.

There is an excellent book, by Robert Maiorano, on Mozartiana. It is quite detailed, as it was written during the creation of the ballet. Highly recommended reading; should be readily available through your libraries (interlibrary loan, if not owned in their collections.) I don't believe it's still in print.

#37 Jack Reed

Jack Reed

    Platinum Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,500 posts

Posted 19 September 2000 - 01:34 PM

Thanks to alexandra for the color-coding of "Mozartiana". That really added something for me!

Jeannie, there were some projections onto the drops in "Stars and Stripes" I omitted mention of in my haste: With the forecurtain up, there was some light with cross-hatch shadows on the right side of the red-and-white backdrop, and a few white light stars, I think, on the left; and when the forecurtain came down, we saw a few white-light stars on it for a moment. All this projected stuff is new and, to my mind, extraneous, as was starting "Rubies" in near-darkness; showing the audience the dancers in full light as the curtain went up got "oohs" in the old days, too. Anyway, the backdrops for "Stars and Stripes" are all cloth, as far as I could see, as I say above.

Changing the order, omitting, editing the music is, for me, the choreographer's prerogative: They're making a new thing out of old materials, and it must succeed or fail on the qualities of the new thing. In politics, the end may not justify the means, but in art, it's the only justification!

[This message has been edited by Jack Reed (edited September 27, 2000).]


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):