New Jewels Design

[Alexandra]

Not too much comment yet on the new Jewels designs. What do you think?

[carbro]

Did not even pause for a moment before voting "hate 'em." Can I vote twice?

Ugly, cheap, and in the case of Rubies, unduly harsh. The hanging jewelry in Rubies (I'm assuming some exists) is not even visible from ROW A (!!!) of the Fourth Ring. I know, because I ran down during calls to try to see it. It is just barely visible for Emeralds and Diamonds.

The tie-dye is out of place. They should keep the fabric for when someone mounts "Woodstock: The Ballet." (Oh jeez! Now I said it, so someone's going to do it. )

[lampwick]

I voted "Other"

This is the first time I had ever seen Jewels so I had nothing to compare the set to. I agree with cabro on the tie-dye backdrop in Emeralds. I have a tank top that looks exactly the same. The set and lighting in Rubies was quite nice, I thought. It DID look a bit like a Modern Dance set...maybe a bit out of place but I liked the effect nonetheless. Diamonds was nondescript and bland. I agree that the Jewels were difficult to see from the 4th Ring.

I was at the first night of Jewels and the audience gasped approvingly when the curtain was raised on each set. The dancing in Rubies was fantastic BTW

[Farrell Fan]

I guess we really are in a new century when we're discussing the SETS for a Balanchine ballet! I loved them. For me they hark back to Peter Harvey's own 1967 original set. I'm glad to have seen the last of Robin Wagner's set for Jewels, which I always thought was more bargain basement than Van Cleef and Arpels. The audience responded enthusiastically to the new Rubies set in particular -- with gasps and cheers. What could be bad about that? But trust Anna Kisselgoff to opine that "The red slats recall Russian Suprematist paintings just as the flat acrobatic silhouette for the second ballerina in 'Rubies' comes from Balanchine's 1920's ballets.' And here I'd always thought of her as a 1940's pin-up girl.

The Diamonds set was the least successful. I agree with Ballet Alerter Bobbi that it ought to have been more suggestive of a grand ballroom. But regardless of sets, Diamonds has always been a letdown since SF stopped dancing it. By the way, I was sitting in the second ring and had no problem seeing the jewels.

[nysusan]

I only saw Jewels once before, about 30 years ago - so I don't exactly remember the original sets. I LOVED the new set for Rubies, I thought the glitteringly modern design was perfect for the music and choreography. I could have done without the tie dye in Emeralds but aside from that I thought it was fine. The only set I didn't like was Diamonds - much too fussy & all that blue swirling around. I just kept thinking rhinestones...

I'm dissapointed to hear that the hanging jewelry wasn't visible from the 4th ring. I'm going to see it again on Saturday and will be sitting in the 4th instead of the 2nd. Wonder if the change in seating will effect my opinion.

[carbro]

But trust Anna Kisselgoff to opine that "The red slats recall Russian Suprematist paintings just as the flat acrobatic silhouette for the second ballerina in 'Rubies' comes from Balanchine's 1920's ballets.' And here I'd always thought of her as a 1940's pin-up girl.

I agree, FF, that Rubies' Tall Girl harks to the pin-ups :yes:, but maybe here AK is referring specifically to Tall Girl's plie-penchee exit from the First Movement. :shrug:

[Hal]

:shrug: I vote other. Hated emeralds. Thought it was cheesy. Loved the Rubies set. Found it a great improvement on the original. The striking black background with the red streaks perfectly reflected the dance costumes and the sense of the ballet. And Diamonds was worse than emeralds. What should have been the most classy of the lot was the cheesiest drek. Bring back the classy original set for Diamonds. This new set is just awful. It almost ruined the ballet for me - until Kowroski came out.

[Leigh Witchel]

I found the sets easy to tune out. I also never liked the Wagner drops, the only ones I had seen; they smacked more of plexiglas than gemstone.

When my seatmate at Emeralds started talking about shepherds and shepherdesses I wondered if the sets had been the problem. The sets for Emeralds and Diamonds give the wrong cues to me; Emeralds is too leafy and Diamonds too ice-watery. It's not nature we should be looking at; it's jewels, or even better one through the prism of the other.

[Estelle]

Are there some online photographs where one could see the previous sets and those ones? And were there also some changes in the costumes?The only set for "Jewels" that I've seen so far are those by Christian Lacroix for the POB production (annoyingly, the French press paid far more attention to the fact that Lacroix was involved than to the ballet itself :shrug: ) and I wonder what the others look like...

Some photographs of the Lacroix costumes can be seen there:

http://www.culturekiosque.com/dance/reviews/rhfjewels.html

and also on

http://www.enguerand.com/

(using "titre de reportages" and typing "joyaux").

[carbro]

Merci bien, Estelle, except I was unable to view the photos. There was blank space where they should have been. Maybe I'll try again later.

Meanwhile, I don't know how much you'll be able to discern here --really can't see the sets -- but the current production uses the traditional "Jewels" costumes. Try this: http://www.nycballet.com/programs/frc.html

More here for Diamonds and Rubies: http://www.nycballet.com/about/rep_jewels.html

Costumes only, no sets.

[glebb]

I really liked the original "Jewels" sets. Does anyone know if Balanchine ever expressed interest in having them changed?

[Juliet]

Peter Harvey did the original sets.

He did these as well.

I think they are splendid!!! The woodland glen of Emeralds is softer now, but the light coming through the leaves in summer, and the faint sound of a stream are lovely touches for my imagination. The music and the design marry happily....the costumes are very beautifully deep and sumptuous, but if they don't quite work as garb for dryads, the backdrop cerrtainly does not detract from them.

I like the suggestion of draperies now, the faint black delineation of them, rather than the actual swags and furbelows.

Rubies is my least favourite of the trio (I know, sacrilege!) but I thought the straight lines, glittery costumes and city-night lighting all worked----

Diamonds looks lovely against the ice-kingdom/underwater colours of the set. I do think somehow the dancing looks cramped by it---I can't explain why, but it seems as it the expansiveness and regality have been lost. I think it is a beautiful set, and perhaps my impressions will change when I see it in the Opera House of the Kennedy Center next month.....

I don't see the tie-dye in these--I think they are beautiful.

[oberon]

I didn't see a tie-dye motif in EMERALDS, just foliage...it was attractive. I wasn't crazy about the RUBIES set...the side panels on the DIAMONDS setting did seem to slightly infringe on the dance space.

[Sulan]

In brief, I thought the Rubies set was great, hated the Diamonds set, and had no strong feelings either way on the set for Emeralds. The reason I'm posting, however, is to say that most of the audience LOVED the new sets... There was massive applause each time the curtain went up (and some gasps), twittering in the audience about the sets during the performance, and the sets were all anyone seemed to talk about during the intermissions. Now, the fact that the audience was so fixated on the sets doesn't seem like a good thing to me, but hey, they're filling the house, which is more than can be said of most performances (both dance related and non) I've attended lately.