Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Alexandra

Should Musagète stay in repertory?

Should Musagète stay in repertory?  

25 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Musagète stay in repertory?

    • 1. Yes! Eifman should be brought in as resident choreographer. A new day has dawned!
      0
    • 2. Show it occasionally.
      4
    • 3. It should close with the season.
      21
    • 4. Other (please explain)
      0


Recommended Posts

In addition to the "keep it or heave it" question above, what effect, if any, will Musagète have on the repertory?

Edited by Alexandra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The works of Angelin Prejolcaj and Mauro Bigonzetti at NYCB paved the way for the Eifman (although I thought both of those were somewhat more successful than "Musagete.") I dread to think what next season will bring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it must, not should, close with the season

if nycb goes that route, i will have to go another, more civilized route (like, stay home!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Charlieloki - I don't think that Alexandra meant it should be a season closer, rather that when the season is over, the ballet should not be revived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm very emotional about this issue

what i meant was: never, never, never again put this piece on the new york state theater stage

it defiles balanchine and his house

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oberon   

I didn't hate it, but I also wouldn't want to see it again.

I am not sure if the Eifman ballet is the reason, but on the last 3 days I have been in the lobby at different times of the day (I work nearby) and there have been unusually long lines, considering the season is almost over.

My feeling is, it will play another season...too much was spent on costumes and it was well-received by a large part of the opening night audience. Remember, you don't have to go if you don't want to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
carbro   

Voted to chuck it lock, stock and barrel (i.e., "close with season").

My guess, however, is that it will get 3-4 performances during Winter '05, and with a nice, strong deity on our side, that will be the end of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bobbi   

Did anyone else get an Audience Feedback survey by email regarding the Friday, June 18's, program (which was of course Suite 3 and the new Eifman)? I don't ever remember a question about a specific program before. The last question was, "Would you recommend this program to a friend?" Take a guess what I put. . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bobbi, I got that audience feedback email the day after my last three nights at NYCB. In a typical bit of survey stupidity the choices given for attending a performance did not include "Because it was on my subscription." Be that as it may, I chose not to recommend the Eifman ballet to a friend. Or even to my worst enemy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lampwick   

I voted to show it occasionally. Looks like it cost a fortune and it would be a waste to never show it. That's the only reason I can think of though. And it will probably die quickly with the regular NYCB crowd attending mixed rep evenings. I didn't hate the ballet, but it was structurally flawed and more than borderline distasteful. It's not a fitting tribute to George Balanchine. The fact that it's billed as such, and is danced by his company, strikes me as just plain wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Helene   
I voted to show it occasionally. Looks like it cost a fortune and it would be a waste to never show it. That's the only reason I can think of though.

Perhaps NYCB could rent the sets and costumes back to Eifman's company, and depending on the performance rights, license the ballet back as well. It sounds like it fits right into his repertoire -- unless it's too tame. Most audiences wouldn't know that it's an insult to anyone and would take the whole thing as a metaphor For Something Important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think, though, that part of what Eifman is doing is using big names as a box office draw. Someone wrote this, and now I can't remember who -- was it Gottlieb? -- that it's like the made for TV documentaries. (Perhaps Scott and Laci, the Ballet, will be next....) Otherwise, he'd have to call his ballets Tortured Artist I, Tortured Artist II, etc.

I understand why people have dwelt on the insult aspect, but if this is anything like the Eifman I have seen, it could be judged harshly on artistic terms, aside from content. But the people who like Eifman ballets will like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ari   

If Eifman's tactic is to use big names as a box office draw, it's not going to work with Musagete. People who love Balanchine have been outraged by it, and those who don't won't care. It's not as though he's a celebrity outside the dance world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think more people know Balanchine than would know Spessitseva ("the Red Giselle"). But there's still more box office draw if the tortured artist was "real." People want it to be a REAL tortured artist, especially if there are a few nasty little stories buried in there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right. If Hollywood were to make a bio of Balanchine this is what

we would get. They'd use his personal life salaciously to attract an

audience. Remember that awful Ken Russell film about Tchaikovsky?

Musagete is reminiscent of that.

The irony is the fact that it was a good idea. The image of him working

with his dancers - teaching, demonstrationg and creating variations

from the classroom to performance could have been lovely. NYCB

could have done it - too bad they didn't think of it first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Helene   

I went back and read the descriptions of the ballet, both here and by critics. I saw Busoni's Doktor Faust at the San Francisco Opera last weekend, and if there hadn't been any references to Balanchine, LeClerq, Mourka, and Farrell in them, and just a description of the stage action, I would have thought that the ballet was about Faust, at least Busoni's Faust, who was based on Faust puppet plays, not Goethe's version.

Not that this would have made it a better ballet, it seems like a better fit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×