San Francisco Ballet, Program 2
Posted 30 November 2002 - 06:33 PM
Posted 02 December 2002 - 06:38 PM
Ari? Samba? Juliet? Ginny Kanter? KFM?? Sorry if I've forgotten anyone
Posted 02 December 2002 - 07:12 PM
The second program (I saw it Saturday night) disappointed me. Serenade was well danced, and I especially liked Julie Diana (waltz) and Sarah Van Patten (Dark Angel), but the two Tomasson pieces were tough going.
I didn't understand Chi-Lin. Was there a story? It seems like it, to judge from the dancers being identified as various characters (unicorn, dragon, etc.), but there was no explanatory note in the program and the action onstage wasn't clear. Prism was also new to me, and I must say it really annoyed me. I just do not see the point of ersatz Balanchine. It's never as good as the real thing, and it actually misrepresents Balanchine's esthetic by applying a formula, which the Master himself never did. In the first place, he always steered clear of Beethoven, and in the second, if he'd been forced to choreograph to the first piano concerto, he would have made something deeper and more cohesive than what Tomasson gave us. Using different dancers for each of the three movements was a bad idea, since the music stands together as a unified piece (as do most concertos). Tomasson missed its darker elements, too—it was all too peppy and cheerful.
I'd much rather have seen the first program again . . . for the third time! It was that good.
Posted 03 December 2002 - 04:36 AM
I found your comments re Prism so interesting. I saw Prism by NYCB at the State Theater when it first premiered--I believe I saw the second performance. A friend of mine who plays in the orchestra said that the audience had gone wild for the ballet at the first show. It happened again--the audience (myself included) did go absolutely nuts. I thought it was absolutely brilliant. loved the casting and the lighting, thought Helgi absolutely caught the spirit of each movement and thought it was beautifully played as well. (side note: Balanchine purposely avoided Beethoven? can we talk about that too?). NYCB brought Prism to SPAC that summer. I thought they made a huge mistake in programming it for a matinee--a ballet that is so dependent on lighting perfomed in daylight at an outdoor theater? Nevertheless, the audience went beserk again. My mom was at that performance and she couldn't get over how beautiful the piece was. Last season, we scheduled one of our trips to NY to see Prism again, and we were extremely disappointed. Flat as a pancake. The only liveliness came from Ben Millepied in the 3rd movement, where it is almost impossible to not be at least lively. MY daughter and I tried to figure out what had gone wrong, and we theorized that without Helgi to coach and impart his ideas, the cast (half new and half original) just couldn't get the spirit of the piece. As an aside, Lindy Madrijieff, formerly of SF Ballet, was cast in the piece, and I thought she was not good at all, which surprised me since she had been one of Helgi's dancers. Daughter and I decided that we would make it a goal to see SF Ballet do Prism.
We saw SF Ballet at City Center in October. I was not terribly pleased by the programming, and was so envious of you Washingtonians who got Serenade, Dances, and Prism. Was even tempted to make a quick trip to DC. We did see Chi-Lin and both enjoyed, but did not love it. I DID love Yuan Yuan Tan, thought she had the most exquisite delicate technique and would love to see her again.
So...what is going on with Prism? How was it received by the rest of the audience?
Posted 03 December 2002 - 05:40 AM
I liked "Prism" more than Ari did, but I take her points. As I wrote in my Post review, I think "Prism" deserves serious consideration -- I agree with Ari that it's a Balanchine derivative, but I think it's better than the usual run of that genre. I also think that Ari's point about it being broken up -- each movement led by a different dancer(s) -- and that this goes against the music is a good one. It's a case of using what LOOK like Balanchine rules the wrong way (think of Tchaikovsky piano concerto and its structure, as opposed to the "one ballerina per movement" of other works).
I also thought the costumes were God Awful. Mustard and greige? Screaming lipstick red, with spangles, making the second ballerina look like a Vegas Act, dancing with a man in a rich rose blouse -- beautiful; I'd like several. And then put the man in the last movement in black? And call it Prism? And I'm forgetting the Pumpkin Ballerina in the first movement.
Who is the Man in Black? "Prism" doesn't set its own stage. In Balanchine ballets, when each person comes out, s/he has a place in the ballet; you can sense it. The Man in Black could be from outer space, yet he leads the troops as though he's been there from the beginning.
All that said, I do think (I'm repeating myself; I also wrote this in my review) that it's one of the very few classical ballets made in the last decade that's worth looking at more than once. And that's not a small accomplishment. I think one of the things we're missing now are the second, third, fourth-rate works. It's not all masterpieces. If you set that standard, you set yourself up for a repertory that's either Masterpieces or Drivel and Dreck.
Posted 03 December 2002 - 05:55 AM
I saw it twice, and that's about the limit of my tolerance for "Chi-Lin." Structurally, you can't fault it. But it's so BORING. It reminded me of a David Bintley piece in SFB's repertory about a decade ago, something about an Egyptian temple and all these men dancing gods of the lung and liver. It was also BORING. And MacMillan's Rituals -- looks good, nothing there. And if you're going to do something based on Chinese mythology -- or Norse, or Greek mythology -- do a program note explaining it. I think Tomasson and the designer tried to do an explanation through design, with the four coins representing the four beasts being projected onto the curtain, and then kind of hovering over each dancer. But I thought the serpent was a dragon -- or a kind of long, funny Chinese dachsund. And you can't tell from the animals which one is air, water, etc. unless you've grown up in that world. The individual gods weren't characterized -- yeah, the turtle "swam," and maybe Chinese turtles are adept in the Australian crawl, but that's not enough. And Chi Lin is a unicorn, a sexually ambivalent figure -- or representing both sexes, but not a woman. Yuan Yuan Tan is very feminine, not ambiguous at all, and her choreography wasn't ambiguous. So it was a set of dances with a nice set. Maffre did the second performance, and I wondered why? I admire Maffre very much, but in this piece she's so different from Tan in every way -- line, approach, temperament -- that she looked miscast.
I thought the "Serenade" staging was not good at all. I'd rank it as the second worst I've seen. On the first night (Wed) it was unbearably choppy, and the dancers didn't seem to know what was going on. Not that there is a story to "Serenade," but the dancers have to have an idea of what they're doing, in the sense that it makes sense to them. Here, we had, "Run on, extend your arms; she extends her arms, count, turn, run off." Feijoo was lovely (the jumping solo) but her dancing was so far above everyone else's, and so mature, she looked like the chaperone at a sorority picnic. The solos looked as though they'd been rehearsed in separate rooms -- Sarah Van Patten especially. DANCE IT BIG!!!! seemed to be her only instruction. Worst of all, they weren't dancing to the music; they were counting. I didn't care that the corps was ragged -- the lines were all over the place -- but I cared about the rest of it. At the second performance, the choppiness was gone, but except for Tan, they didn't have a second cast. The other dancers (Kristin Long and Catherine Winfield) weren't strong enough technically.
I find this a problem with SFB in general. It's a company of first impressions. Opening night looks great -- and kudos to this; this opener was the most polished in recent memory. ABT always looks as though they've just rolled in an hour before curtain after a 2-year lay-off on opening night. Which side is front? Is Bayadere the one with the ramp? But SFB was ready for company, and that's great. But they don't have second casts. There's not enough depth. (And one explanastion for the often-commented on difference between newspaper and magazine reviews is that newspaper reviewers only write about opening night; magazine reviewers go back for seconds.)
In the first performance of "Prism," Zahorian was in for Long in the first movement and didn't pull it together. At the second performance I saw (Saturday matinee) she did, and the ballet looked much more musical. Sarah Van Patten and Zachary Hench did the pas de deux and it was difficult to watch. Van Patten kept falling off point in the duets and looked visibly relieved when she danced her solos. I thought she was far to young and inexperienced -- technically and emotionaly -- for this, and wondered if we were being used as an out of town try out. She's a lovely dancer, and has a great deal of promise, but she needs time.
Posted 03 December 2002 - 06:43 AM
no, CHi lin doesn't work for me, either -- the Chronicle reviewer raved, and that program sold out here, but few balletomanes care for it.... there WAS some spectacular bravura dancing by some of hte men -- Sergio TOrrado as the dragon was Bolshoi magnificent, and Hansuke Yamamoto as the Phoenix also, staggering animal bravura.... but even so, it seemed like you'd just eaten a pound of beef and needed to sleep it off.....
We haven't seen van Patten yet -- from what I'd heard, we were maybe getting a new Loscavio.... I guess maybe not (the amazing thing about Loscavio was her OWN ideas)
But it's strange to hear that Kristin Long doesn't seem technically strong -- she must have been ill or injured.....
Helgi's ballets don't lend themselves to dancers -- his musicality is strange, but REAL, and a dancer who hears it -- as Loscavio did -- can make the case for his choreography surprisingly telling.... but there's only ONE way that it makes sense (unlike with Balanchine, where new dancers find whole new and convincing interpretations)..... and they often can't find that thread; I think maybe that's happened with Prism; I rember seeing it once when it worked, I was dazzled, and then a couple more times when I wondered what it was I'd liked so much..... still, I agree with Alexandra, it's important to have new ballets of the second and third magnitude (Helgi's Haffner Symphony qualifies, also; it should last).
Posted 03 December 2002 - 07:32 AM
Van Patten was lovely as the second soloist in "Ballo," and she may well be ballerina material. She's got guts. I think she looked miscoached in Serenade and miscast in Prism. Paul, I hesitated to write anything about Long because I know you like her She seemed very likable, but in both Dances and Serenade -- and I'd say this of a lot of the women in solo roles -- I just didn't see any strength or scale -- i.e., the amount of space between the legs in the jumps in "Serenade" And I didn't see any personality; I saw a nice smile, but not a face, if that makes sense. And this, I realize, is one big difference between seeing a company every day and seeing them for a week once every year or two.
I'd bet on Zahorian to be your Loscovio replacement
Posted 03 December 2002 - 07:40 AM
I think Prism is a very good ballet. Yes, it is derivative of Balanchine. Lots of stuff is, because Balanchine isn't making any more ballets, and most of what he made is masterful. If I were to attempt choreography (heaven forbid), I would look at Balanchine's work for inspiration. Even if I didn't consciously attempt to create in that spirit, I think that someone such as Helgi who danced for Balanchine for years would be so influenced that it would be well-nigh impossible to avoid some derivation. And in my opinion that is a good thing, because if I can't see new Balanchine works, I'll take what someone is trying to do in the same spirit, as long as the effort is honest.
I think the audiences went nuts for Prism because it is good. Audiences are still flocking to hear Beethoven symphonies too, because they are good--some better than others, but all worth a listen. My point is that I think the audience CAN tell when quality is present. I don't think we need Anna Kisselgoff or even you, Alexandra, to tell us what is good. I enjoy reading reviews, I enjoy reading what you write Alexandra, I have learned a great deal from you. But I don't think that the critics are the ultimate determinors of what is good, and I think that what is popular often (by no means always, we all know that) is what is good.
I am still trying to figure out what went wrong the last time I saw Prism, in last winter season. Oh, and I don't remember spangles. I've seen it at least 4 times and I honestly don't.
Regarding Chi-Lin, I wasn't bored at all. I do agree that some program notes of explanation would have been really helpful. But my interest level remained high and I was captivated by Yuan Yuan Tan. I remember hearing a lecture by Jaime Laredo about judging a violin competition. Laredo's comment was that the bottom line is: was this person someone you want to hear (read see) again? That's it for me. I want to see her again. And I cannot comprehend that Yuan Yuan Tan and Muriel Maffre would ever share a role! They are totally different, in every way: style, appearance, technique.
Posted 03 December 2002 - 08:29 AM
About Balanchine avoiding Beethoven, he never made a ballet to Beethoven's music. He felt strongly that ballets should only be made to "musique dansant"—dancey music. He thundered against John Cranko's using the Brahms Second Piano Concerto for a ballet, saying that you should be able to put people in jail for doing that. I assume he felt the same way about Beethoven. Robert Irving evidently agreed (he and Balanchine shared many musical tastes, which is why they worked together so well) and once said in an interview, about Balanchine, "He's never made the mistake of choreographing to Beethoven."
I think their objection was that Beethoven's music is too intense, too thunderous (even when it's quiet), and seems to be coming from deep inside. Ballet is objective (in contrast to much of modern dance), and I think Balanchine felt that it works best with music that is objective, too. In any event, I thought that the ballet that Tomasson imposed on the First Piano Concerto was a brightly objective piece sitting uneasily on music that was a private musing.
Posted 03 December 2002 - 08:42 AM
My suggestion would be for you to read reviews for a broader view of the work, rather than to see if you were "right". That's not a reviewer's job.
What makes a work "good"? Yes, that's individual. What one expects from a reviewer, and what differentiates him/her over time from a general audience member, is that you should be getting a sense from his/her writing what "good" means to that writer. His or her standards will be enumerated over time, and give you a road that you can choose to travel on, or diverge from. S/he will say more than "I thought it was bad" - you'll read "I thought there was no structure to the work and it was incoherent".
I'd have to say I'm no believer in mass audience reaction being the measure of a work. Audiences react to quality, yes. They also react to pretty costumes, good lighting, pretty or handsome dancers and "tricks". If you would rather go with the "I don't know what Art is, but I know what I like and what the audience likes" approach, all well and good, but then, why discuss the performance at all?
Posted 03 December 2002 - 09:11 AM
"Why discuss the performance at all?" Isn't that what we do here, all the time?
Posted 03 December 2002 - 07:13 PM
I didn't mean to imply that the audience's opinion had no value - but I did wish to defend the value of those who write about dance.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
members, guests, anonymous users
Help support Ballet Alert! and Ballet Talk for Dancers year round by using this search box for your amazon.com purchases: