Jack Reed

My concern is that while the redesign may contribute to bringing in more audience, to the extent it is a less good production - as many here say - it may short-change them in the end. (Maybe this is also part of Cristian's concern.) Had Midsummer been given in something more like its original form, would fewer people have had a better experience? I can't make the calculation. I'm not sure this represents such a turn-around either, noticing that the number of performances in Broward (Ft. Lauderdale) has lately been cut from four per weekend to two; rather, it may be that MCB is finding a new audience, if sales are rising overall - as I believe board member and sometime critic (though not of MCB, to avoid conflict of interest), Robert Gottlieb, has claimed. Some of us think we've seen this before, in New York in the '80s. Those of us who knew and loved the shows we'd seen had to endure withdrawal pains, and - here we go again? We'll see.

Right on, Cristian. This is one Balanchine ballet where it's not all "dancing to music" - although that's still a strong element. The movement establishes and develops the character of each of them (in Act I, what we're mainly talking about here), develops the situation, and carries the story. Another situation? Another fantasy? Maybe in principle - I'm not there to see this - but from the discussion of it here, the results are weakened effects and another confusion, different from the confusions in the minds of the characters (which help to make the play such fun, and its poetry so powerful).

Still curious how well you can see the choreography, with the scrim in the way - or not. Macaulay reported the dancing had a quality of immediacy, which I found very encouraging, since what I (and Jordan Levin) have found disappointing is a certain "glossing over" in MCB's Balanchine under Lopez's regime. (That's Levin's phrase, but it fits what I have seen there in the last couple of seasons; her writing over the years has fit closely what I have seen in the theater, among her other virtues.) Too late for me to come check it out myself - the seats are gone, the PR worked, although whether those buyers will come back remains to be seen, but that seems to be happening too. I will see the company when they are here in Chicago in a month, but I'll be interested to read what you and our friend bart whom we haven't heard from for a while have to say.

Okay, so it's not so extreme as I stated it, and what I was given may have been some wishful self-promotion. But the sentence I quoted makes me really nervous sometimes. I realize different people support ballet for different reasons; Kirstein and Diaghilev were at one extreme, and others, at the other extreme, are in it for the civic benefit, as part of a local revival campaign - industry has moved out, so let's attract high-tech people, or something of the kind. Call it "love of the art" vs. "civic improvement". The latter situation may give more opening to ordinary marketers, like the one I quoted, and give a devoted AD a very hard time. Not that Kirstein and Balanchine didn't care; of course they did: I love the old story that the two of them were watching the lobby at intermission, and Kirstein complained, "Look how many are leaving," to which Balanchine replied, "Look how many are staying!" (But it took Morton Baum to get them on their feet, and Miami is not New York or Paris.)

I think so too, Drew, but "PR play" was choriamb's phrase. And as the few examples I gave show, Balanchine himself tried working with scrims and changes in costuming, though he usually seems to have been more satisfied in the end with simpler presentation.

It depends. Importantly, it depended on where the initiative was. He re-costumed his ballets (and adjusted or revised their choreography sometimes, especially for the move from the small stage of the City Center to the large stage of the New York State Theater) when he felt the need - Theme and Variations, when I first began seeing it performed under his supervision in the '70's, emphasized the ranking of the soloists by costuming four of the couples in yellow and eight of them in red; later on, they appeared in two shades of blue instead. Incidentally, to our subject, when the long-hidden T&V reappeared at NYCB - it wasn't seen from 1960 until 1970, according to Nancy Reynolds' valuable book, Repertory in Review - it was preceded by three new ballets made to earlier movements of Tchaikovsky's suite, "removed from the audience by a scrim" [emphasis added]! Well, look at that! But then we turn the page and read that "the scrim was abandoned after the first performance". [My emphasis again] So, yes, Balanchine was certainly not shy about press - among my favorite examples are the telling clips of him speaking - apparently extemporaneously - to press cameras in the two-hour documentary Balanchine - and he was frequently tinkering with his ballets, often "stripping them down" - perhaps most famously cutting away Kurt Seligmann's original, obscuring costumes for The Four Temperaments between performances? But I have never encountered any report that he acceded to somebody else's idea to make such changes for a publicity stunt. It was always his artistic inspiration of the moment. It was always his show - just as Apollo was his ballet, and, as he said at the time he truncated it, in response to the uproar over those changes, "It's my ballet, and I can do what I want with it." People said then, He had no right to do that, but personally, I agree with him in principle - he and no one else had the right to make that decision, while at the same time, I disagree with his actual decision that time - I think the original Apollo is much better. (As does, most significantly, Suzanne Farrell, who stages Balanchine's original version with her troupe.) But, yes, the "story" must not be concealed, but revealed - even if there's no story, no narrative, like there is in Midsummer, which has a story and a setting, where the three groups of characters get tangled up; the dancing in the music is the "story" in a ballet often enough - and that must not be obscured.

"They have to put on what we can sell." And the AD? Dos the AD direct the artists, and the marketers direct the AD? Oh, brave new world that hath such people in't. (Starting a fresh rant…)

DTH's Creole Giselle was a project to "redesign" the ballet for dark-hued dancers - the Wilis wore blue-gray tutus, too - which you can even glimpse clips from on YouTube sometimes. (Searching just now brings up lots of them.) But I feel that the experience of art, what art is for, is that it takes you away - away from the world you know, not least theater art, and they have to be careful not to "bring the art to the audience," lest they bring it down to the audience and deprive the audience of the experience of going to it - going to the world of that ballet, of that art. (It can do for you what a short vacation can - and no jet lag! And it can change you forever.) I think the DTH Giselle was pretty successful theater, BTW. (Video of the whole production is currently on offer on Amazon, too; remember our link at the bottom of the page!)

Macaulay has been logging a lot of miles for a Times dance critic in the last several years, and I'm glad for it. Decades ago they hardly went anywhere, although I do remember Kisselgoff coverage of a "Festival of Stars" in Chicago in the '70's. I think he's excellent, and partly a reflection at the Times that it really is a national newspaper, but I wonder whether they send him or he sends himself. In contrast to the redesign concept, TSFB tends to present authentic performances of Balanchine's repertory - personally, I think a good authentic staging, including well-coached movement - does make the experience fresh, the experience of anything - and he covers those. Likewise I didn't see the same performances in Phoenix as he seems to have - the usual quotes they put in their publicity are a little vague as to context, as usual - but having seen their Balanchine show in Phoenix last May I can say they look pretty authentic to me. No novelty added for the publicity. So I may disagree a little with my friend abatt. I think Macaulay covers what's important, wherever in the world it is, according to what he thinks that is. (I can't quote chapter and verse, or post links, but IIRC, he's even explained in the course of some reviews why what he's writing about is something important, and worth our attention.) But mainly I think abatt and I are in agreement that this is not a good thing, that this compromises the art, makes it less of an experience than it would have been. Here's a question: Is "purist" a derogatory term or a compliment? People apply it to me sometimes - "You know what's wrong with you, Jack? You're a purist!" - and I always thank them for it: I want the experience pure, unadulterated, and STRONG - and I want it available to others who may also be susceptible to enjoying it as I do. Winding down my rant, now - any other purists here?

We're pretty serious about our art form, our entertainment; ballet is serious fun, important fun, right? But there's another aspect to the redesigns we see going on here and there - unnecessary redesigns, even interfering redesigns - from the point of view of the marketing mind, the mind of the marketers: It gets attention, it generates "buzz", right? Just look at this thread, for example, running three pages already. Should that be a factor along with, or even dominating artistic factors or esthetic qualities in the mind of the AD? Should marketers have such dominance? AD's may well be glad to listen to the marketers; they know their company needs income, and they'd be disappointed - or hurt, even - if nobody came and watched. I well remember in this connection not so many years ago - Edward was still there - a marketer who knows my face said for me to hear, "They have to put on what we can sell." Marketers would of course promote themselves and what they do, but this development - a sad development to me, when it compromises the art, as this underwater concept seems to have done - may be part of the story. Not one I like to think about. Not as much fun as an Esther Williams vehicle, right. Uh oh. When does a ballet become just a show, just a curiosity, another spectacle to churn the crowds in and out, a circus?

Just agreeing with cubanmiamiboy's point - it looks from here like something has been lost - or hidden, obscured - in the re-packaging. Speaking of "obscured"- was there was an obscuring scrim down all the time? Never raised? I'm still wondering, incredulous, with some others, that anyone would do that.

Back in the day, I saw two consecutive programs on consecutive weekends in Broward and Miami Beach, crossing over - it's a two-hour drive, well-suited to cruise-control - to Naples, where the Philharmonic Society hosted a couple of mid-week MCB shows including items from both. But as to calling it the South Florida Ballet, I remember Villella blowing up one evening before the performance, loudly complaining that "We carry their name - Miami - but they give us nothing. Miami Beach has always been generous." This may have been when their new building at 22nd Street and Liberty Avenue was set to be built in Miami Beach. Your idea is not a bad one, Birdsall. So Andersen coached Oberon, the part he danced in that 1986 video? Hmm...

That whole review makes me think I may have missed something by not going down to Florida. I saw Messmer here in Chicago a few years ago, as though on her way from the East Coast to the West, and I thought I saw a lot of potential, and I've lately picked up that not only Sandra Jennings but Suki Schorer had a hand in the staging. (Schorer staged a bit of Midsummer very beautifully for Workshop several years ago.) But I just checked the tickets remaining, and Broward - where they are running only two repertory shows per weekend now, instead of four, as under Villella - is very nearly sold out. (And I still wonder about that scrim people are complaining about here.) Yeah, nice swipe at ABT, abatt. Right on! It's good to think she's finally in the hands of people who appreciate her.

Alistair Macaulay's New York Times review includes one image, apparently from a performance, with no scrim that I can see. Does it not accurately show the production as you all saw it in the theater? It wouldn't be the first time a ballet company made some adjustment for a publicity picture, I'll bet, or even encouraged some dress-rehearsal photo-taking. Just for the record, not to mention our tradition of accuracy, what do you think is going on here?

Just curious when you saw those NYCB performances, choriamb. Since the mid-80's, NYCB's Balanchine has often seemed bland to me, and so, I haven't seen much of it.

For what it's worth, "the Balanchine version" was supposed to be mainly an older version in its first two acts, mostly staged from her own BRdMC performance memory by Alexandra Danilova, with a mostly-new Third Act by Balanchine, to replace the lost Russian and discarded French third acts; I don't remember what MCB did in their production, but if it derived differently from tradition it may well have had a lot in common with NYCB's but still not have any Balanchine in it. While I'm recollecting, I might mention that NYCB's Coppelia was telecast in 1978 by PBS in their "Live from Lincoln Center" series, so you may be able to find a video of it to see. The cast was wonderfully led by Patricia McBride and Helgi Tomasson, and as a point of interest, while we're talking about MCB, that cast included Lourdes Lopez as one of the four "Jesterettes," the fifth of the seven Act Three divertissements. (The last of these was a beautiful pas de deux for McBride and Tomasson to music Balanchine took from Delibes' Sylvia for the purpose.) But this is a little OT. More to the point would be the NYCB Midsummer telecast May 24, 1986, in the PBS Great Performances - Live from Lincoln Center series, with Maria Calegari as Titania, Ib Andersen as Oberon, and Jean-Pierre Frohlich as Puck, and directed by Kirk Browning. That would be something to see if and when you can, although in south Florida, you're a long way from New York and its fabulous archives.

The comments here from those who have seen NYCB's production recently are encouraging, but you might want to approach NYCB's current production of Midsummer with caution, rather than assume it's a carefully-maintained reproduction of the original. I haven't seen it, or even read about it, in many many years, but I've seen a few of their other productions. For example: It's been many, may years since their production of Balanchine's half-hour distillation of Swan Lake was revised with black costumes for all the swans but Odette, the lighting became more dusky and obscure, and the number of the swans was increased, so that, clotting the stage in their dark costumes, their patterns - much of the point of that version - became obscure. (Villella's recent revival of that "concentrated" SL was notable for reinstating the original numbers and colors of the swans, not to mention their superb dancing. This was just one of innumerable instances where Villella's company gave this old Balanchine addict - one who had happily immersed himself in hundreds of performances supervised by Balanchine - more satisfaction than Peter Martins's company does.) And not so many years ago, NYCB showed a version of Scotch Symphony with subdued dancing made to look even smaller by a huge nearly-blank backdrop in desert pastels, attributed to Karin von Aroldingen, no less, instead of the original Horace Armistead drop, which had evoked the shadowy forests of the Scottish Highlands and gave proper prominence to the dancers, who wore, for the most part, costumes derived from dark tartans. So if you want to check NYCB's production today, do your research, although these reports do look encouraging. But to those comments, yeah, why would anybody want to mess with it? Or with the others in my examples? It's hard to account for the actions and judgements of others. "Artistic differences," etc. Although we can allow for the doleful influence of the marketers: If somebody changes it, they can say, "It's New! NEW!" And companies stage Balanchine's musically wonderful The Nutcracker with New! sets and costumes from time to time. Me, like vipa, I can live very happily with "just about perfect"! And like Drew, I don't like scrims that interfere, although the one at the beginning of Balanchine's The Nutcracker, which lets us see the party preparations the kids are spying on through the keyhole, was a master stroke. For me, it contributes. (And then it gets out of the way, IIRC.)

Reviewing my seat reviews from a year ago in planning a return visit, I thought I'd update this discussion a little bit by saying that I found 17th Row center much better than the 18th Row - no blocking there, as Helene says. The 14th Row had excellent distance, and my seat, number 11, had a good offset - I'm very fussy about sitting too far to the side of the center line, because ballet is "frontal", and if I'm off-center, the dancers are dancing for somebody else - those people over there in the center - and not for me: I want to get their effect right between the eyes! On the other hand, I found the 14th Row low, as I had the 18th. (I stand about 5' 7" in my socks, so someone reading this can interpret for themselves.) So I'm thinking I'll aim for the 16th Row this time. As for places to stay, Maricopa Manor was a very pleasant "oasis" - their own word, but it really fits - once one adjusts to the transportation four miles along Central via the light rail, which takes a little while. But surviving in the heat includes taking it easy. (This Midwesterner learned to walk adagio rather than andante.) And for places to eat, I may have made a bad choice at Southern Rail - the flavor of the Gumbo Ya-Ya just blared, compared to my favorite New Orleans restaurant in Chicago - but I had several good meals from the skillful and original menus at Postino Central and a few more at Pizzeria Bianco. (Thanks for those two recommendations Arizona Native! I'll have to try your others.) At Nobuo, one of my experiments, across the way from Pizzeria Bianco, familiar (and typically wholesome) Japanese components were combined in ways that seemed weird to me, though not to others - the place had quite a following and soon filled up. Has anyone tried the round restaurant atop the Hyatt Regency Hotel? Probably not a bargain, like other restaurants with a view, but once, for a tourist? I thought it might afford a nice view of the mountains late in the afternoon, like an hour before sunset. The rest of the neighborhood right around Symphony Hall seems to be mostly sports bars, but as it was, the nearest one directly west on Adams, Steve's Greenhouse, provided a good burger (from their huge list) served by a cheerful and competent young lady... And getting my BA tickets from a competent human being when the high-tech method failed, I inquired about places to eat in the Symphony Hall neighborhood. Has anybody here any experience with Majerle's Sports Grill, on 2nd Street? Or the Arrogant Butcher, 2 E. Jefferson Street?

To me, too. Any performance of Balanchine as authentic as an appearance of this troupe promises is very good news these days. And his Gounod Symphony is fun, not least for letting us hear how much Gounod liked Beethoven and Haydn: I might better have pointed out when I first posted that we hear the energy and humor typical of their music as soon as Gounod's gets under way, and the ballet reflects those high spirits. It is good to think of seeing this ballet again, and if this Chicagoan seems to be a kind of Balanchine carpet-bagger among the DC residents expressing their disappointments here I sympathize with them. It's mainly by traveling that I can find the performances that are missing from my life otherwise, and so I examine the schedules as they appear, hoping against hope.

Re-reading sandik's wrap-up above at the end about the boys reminds me to mention that this production restores the "dance" - verging on a fist-fight at times - of the two boys in Scene Two (while the Prodigal and the Siren "converse" in the background) which Balanchine took out for the taping in Nashville in the late '70's; it's pretty loosely constructed, and I think I see why he did; the ballet is a little tighter without it, but as he was reported to have said, time is slower on television than in the theater - which I agree with - and he wanted it to move along. But we didn't get it in the theater any more after that, and some sequences looked to me here like they may have suffered from being out of performance. But "Ben G," in Bart Cook's role, I believe, in Square Dance was the hit of this event for me; I only wish the close-in shots had been left out, so we could have seen all of him all the time. But, even so. It's "Aria I" from Stravinsky Violin Concerto we got, and it's apt casting: Karin von Aroldingen was a "cool customer" among Balanchine's ballerinas, not "relating" to her partner much either in SVC or as the Siren in Prodigal (except there to dominate and intimidate him - I guess that's one kind of relationship), as you can see in the videos from those days (or in anything else I can remember), and Rausch and the role fit. (Not that she gives it here the weight von Aroldingen did, but this was a rehearsal.)

I tipped off a few friends via e-mail, and one in the New York area and more keen-eyed than I am, commented (I have forwarded some of them the address of sandik's wrap-up just above so they will know who's who. Thanks, sandik.) I enjoyed it, too, but intermittently: Some of the camera-work was intrusive on Friday, compared to Carla Korbes's farewell performance last Spring. Sometimes a balcony-height camera can help deal with the flattening dance gets on screen, but I liked best that bleacher-high wide-angle view I think Amy Reusch liked too, and I wished for it most of the time when I didn't have it. Whoever was on that camera kept it pretty "quiet" - not moving in or out or left or right - most of the time and also had a good sense of slow, easy panning to follow the main action into a corner of the space, without framing so tightly that the sense of space and the dancers' motion through it was lost. Very enjoyable, like sitting in the best seat in the house! Better than we sometimes get from the high-priced TV networks. On the other hand, some of the close-in shots with another camera, when they cut dancers off at the shin (what some of us call "mud shots", because the dancers look like they're shin-deep in it), and especially when they resulted in showing us a headless ballerina, were regrettable. Fewer cameras would have looked better to me (and maybe saved money, too). The point about the mic on Peter Boal reminded me that at the TSFB open class at the Kennedy Center last Fall, it turned out we could hear Suzanne Farrell better than the dancers could. Point taken! A work in progress means more to look forward to.

I haven't seen the Library's film but I would expect the last three names are the pas de trois dancers. The question remains whether Leland or Sumner danced the first variation; alphabetical order adds confusion.

Now that "Violette" - as we spoke of her - has made her final exit, it's good to be with those who also notice. Thanks, especially to those who have posted links to media showing Verdy, particularly the early still images I had never seen before with her frequent partner Edward Villella. (For what it's worth, however, her usual partner in Emeralds was Conrad Ludlow.) Back in the day, Balanchine's audience was a pretty canny and coherent lot; we were mostly regulars - "It was our civilization," Arlene Croce wrote afterward - and applause at the wrong time was rare. But when it was time, was there ever! And shouts, sometimes, and bravo's, and so on. And for one dancer in particular, there was "Viva! Viva!" Usually her name wasn't included, though sometimes it was, but she always seemed to know it meant, "Viva Verdy!" and she would light up even more and come down to the footlights and express her gratitude in body language. VIVA! VIVA!

I was only referring to the Facebook link Helene posted in her first post, seattle_dancer; following that was how I got the "Content not Found" result. When the time came, I had something else to do, though I do think this is a good way to give people at whatever distance - I take it you're in Seattle? I'm in Chicago - a "free sample" of something coming up. Speaking of which, I'll be looking in on PNB's preparations for their City Center visit in the February 19th live stream. Even though I won't be in New York for the performances, I think a live stream can be interesting in itself, and I'm glad you had such a good time with this one. [On the technical side, I'm still using the seven-year-old Macbook Pro I used to watch Korbes's last program last June. It worked okay for that.]

Indeed they are! Here's a list: https://www.pnb.org/community/audience/presentations/ And on another page, we can sign up for reminders, though it's not obvious to me whether that's just for future live streams, which would be handy, or for all publicity about the company, which could be rather much: https://www.pnb.org/live/ Thank you for the nudge.