Ray Posted June 26, 2002 Share Posted June 26, 2002 According to Joan Acocella, NYCB is slated to do *2* Eifman ballets, one in 2004, the centenary of Balanchine's birth (New Yorker 7/1/02, p. 92). Acocella implies that this is a sad irony. What do others think? I'm not an Eifman fan--and I've seen his company twice; more importantly, I think he's a stylistic misfit for the company (to say the least!). Is it a sign of artistic desperation? Artistic shortsightedness? Artistic vision? A move to attract more Russian/Russian American viewers, who pack Eifman's 2-week City Center seasons? Ray Link to comment
Ray Posted June 26, 2002 Author Share Posted June 26, 2002 Sorry all, I see that this issue has been broached in another forum. I tried to delete it but couldn't. R Link to comment
Alexandra Posted June 26, 2002 Share Posted June 26, 2002 Welcome, Ray! The issue has been raised, as you noted, on another forum as part of responses to Joan Acocella's New Yorker piece, but I think it deserves a thread of its own. This is an interesting question. One might argue that it would be interesting, perhaps even good for, NYCB dancers to work with a choreographer with such a different approach, because they might take something of what they learn/observe from him into their regular repertory (within the bounds of that repertory, of course). If, however, the stories that have apparently appeared in the Russian press are true, that one of these ballets is a biography of Balanchine, then that is another story. (Those interested in this story, see http://www.balletalert.com/forum/showthrea...+AND+Balanchine Link to comment
Calliope Posted June 26, 2002 Share Posted June 26, 2002 Maybe it's the Diamond Project influence, but I feel like City Ballet has become a bit gimmicky. It's almost as though instead of marketing, they try creating a press sensation to get people in. It'll be interesting to see what Eifman does, particularly what dancers he uses and how. I'm actually curious to see what Stroman does with them. Her one piece was cute, lots of character acting but the ballet was weak. Link to comment
Juliet Posted June 26, 2002 Share Posted June 26, 2002 I don't think it will be interesting. I think it will be ridiculous and dreadful. Balanchine's ballets are not enough of a celebration? I cannot believe that this is not an April Fool's joke. Eifman has his company, he fills City Center every engagement, all power and happiness to him and the dancers. Whatever City Ballet dancers need to absorb, it isn't this. Link to comment
dirac Posted June 27, 2002 Share Posted June 27, 2002 It's hard to believe there was ever a time in NYCB's history that when Balanchine and Kirstein felt the need to augment the repertory, the guest choreographers had names like Robbins, Ashton, Tudor...... Link to comment
Mel Johnson Posted June 27, 2002 Share Posted June 27, 2002 There is a Scottish curse: May you live in interesting times! Link to comment
Manhattnik Posted June 27, 2002 Share Posted June 27, 2002 It wasn't long ago that we were kicking around the idea of an Eifman ballet on Balanchine as a rather sick joke, and now there's some indications it might come true! What a scary thought. I think it's time we blew the dust off of the libretto for "Balanchine -- the Prodigal Son" and polished off some of the rough edges. I was going to say that Balanchine and Eifman are on completely opposite ends of the "drama vs. pure dance" spectrum, except that Balanchine could be quite over-the-top and dramatic when he chose; witness the scene in Davidsbundertanze where the Shumann figure confronts those menacing critics with the enormous goose-quill pens. Of course, with Eifman they'd probably be levitating or doing something unspeakable with those pens... I have contemplated casting such an extravaganza, only to feel the room spinning around me. Link to comment
Ray Posted June 27, 2002 Author Share Posted June 27, 2002 At the risk of offending B-worshippers (among which I count myself at times), I think Balanchine had definite moments of bad taste: Western Symphony, for one (don't hate me!) and the more talked about than seen PAMTGG (I'm all for a revival--I bet John Clifford and/or Pat Neary could do it). Yet Balanchine was ambivalent, at least initially, about those critic figures in Davidsbundlertanze--when I was at SAB I was one of them and we were on one night, off the next, and then back on. (No one has performed it *quite* the way I did, I'm sure!) But nothing B did compares to Eifman. Culturally speaking, I think Eifman is a fascinating, post-Soviet arts phenomenon. But he's a poor choice for NYCB's dancers and rep. (sorry to be so negative, Alexandra, I think if anything *Eifman* will be the one learning). Why not do a ballet by Alonzo King? Or Europeans we haven't seen at NYCB? Ray Link to comment
Manhattnik Posted June 27, 2002 Share Posted June 27, 2002 How much would anyone care to bet that Kowroski finally gets to BE Suzanne Farrell? And think, for just a moment, of the men who might be cast as Mr. B: Jock Soto? Tom Gold? Nilas Martins? Sebastien Marcovici? Philip Neal? Nikolaj Hubbe? James Fayette? Hmm. I feel a poll coming on.... Link to comment
Ray Posted June 27, 2002 Author Share Posted June 27, 2002 Tommy Gold as the young B (who will of course dance with all the other-aged Bs in frenzied angst)? Link to comment
Estelle Posted June 27, 2002 Share Posted June 27, 2002 Originally posted by Ray Why not do a ballet by Alonzo King? Or Europeans we haven't seen at NYCB? Hey, why not inviting Béjart? (surely an idea which would please Manhattnik ) Link to comment
Recommended Posts