Jack Reed

Oh, well done, canbelto! Keeping in mind that it was Robert Gottlieb who suggested Joseph Heller change the title of his book from Catch 17 to Catch 22, right? Yes, I'm very, very OT, but I couldn't resist. I'll just add that I usually find Gottlieb supporting his judgements, although not elaborately, and so I find reading him good exercise which enlivens my experience in the theatre (not necessarily watching the cast or even the rep he wrote about), but that's not everyone's definition of a good critic, I suppose. Now I'll go read the blog entry (thanks, Dale), and see if something more substantial comes to me. (I'm not a great fan of Jacobs*, either, so I don't think I'll be one of her hubby, but you never know.) *Changed my mind about this last, see Post #19 below.

A new member has posted a link in the Dancers forum which takes us to an extensive list of scheduled broadcasts of this new documentary by PBS stations around the country, and I thought at the risk of double-posting or something it should have more prominence: http://ballettalk.invisionzone.com/index.php?showtopic=25955

Cristian, I'm glad you liked the backdrop(s) for Jewels better than I did. I thought they started out fine, in "Emeralds", but later sometimes upstaged the dancing. (Some one reading here may be able to glimpse a bit of the "Emeralds" backdrop here, unless the page has changed in the meantime: It looks to this old amateur astronomer less like the galaxy Villella told us Balanchine said he wanted (see above in Post #21) than like an irregular open star cluster, but there's no denying the celestial aspect. The original 1967 NYCB decor looked a bit overscaled but had the virture of matching the jewel decorations on the costumes, which some thought Karinska had overdone. Ah, well. But at the beginning of "Rubies" the stage is lit in deep red light, so that it's harder to see the dancers than it is a few moments later when normal good, white stage light comes up, and the backdrop goes through some attention-getting changes in those moments, too. And finally, for the record, in the end of the last movement of "Diamonds", the bell-shaped chandeliers outlined on the backdrop in little points of light start to shimmer with a regular, mechanical rythym. The dazzling effect really distracts from the dancing, I felt. All this may have had its origins in Balanchine's comments, but it's an attempt at literal realization of what he said he wanted, and I wonder sometimes whether Mr. B.'s words were always to be taken literally. But that seems to be the contemporary fashion, as though lighting were as important as the choreography or the music, while my experience has taught me to think those things are the main things, and if sets and lighting and costumes just complement them, our enjoyment is greater. On the other hand, the musical component of these performances was really superb, I thought. Not only good tempos, but well-shaped, singing phrases and clear balances so we could hear them. For example, in the last movement of "Diamonds", the anthem and the fugue are clearly set forth, much better than the muddled rendition by the Orchestra of the Opera national de Paris under Paul Connelly's direction on the Pro Arte DVD. (After playing this part of that disc, I turn with relief to the great 1963 or 1964 recording by the Vienna Philharmonic directed by Lorin Maazel in the four-CD set of all the Tchaikovsky symphonies, London 430 787, unfortunately not generally available. Maazel's later recordings and his recent New York Philharmonic concert performance of the Third Symphony were not up to that standard, succumbing instead to the bad tradition of heavy exaggeration in Tchaikovsky performance.) MCB's Opus One Orchestra isn't the Vienna Philharmonic, but it is a real orchestra, not a thin-sounding little band; I counted the names of forty-eight musicians in the program, not least among them Francisco Renno, MCB's remarkable Company Pianist: Not just another "rehearsal pianist" who can pound out the music, he's concert caliber, whose playing points up the witty byplay of Stravinsky's score in "Rubies" and helps to enliven the whole romping ballet. The conductor, Juan Francisco La Manna, can be proud. (Actually, taking applause on stage among the smiling dancers, he looked to be a serious little man. Maybe he felt out of place on the stage, or something. Here's hoping the orchestra continues with MCB, not least so Sr. La Manna gets used to taking his deserved applause!)

some of Villella's pre-performance remarks They're from my notes, so they're fragmented; the insights are his, the mistakes mine: Before he started on the repertory, Villella told us he was pretty happy, having just celebrated his seventy-first birthday and had his fiftieth reunion of his maritime college class soon after. Then, praise in the New York Times. Jewels was out of repertory because we didn't have a set, it died, fell apart, but a couple gave us $250,000 for a new one. This ballet is not a story, does not have literal characters; Balanchine chose three composers. With Faure', he gave us insights into French romanticism, one of his favorite styles. He and Suzanne Farrell visited van Cleef and Arpels. [The well-known story.] Jewels shows his deep regard and respect for women. "Emeralds" is the gem and also the emerald of water. Port de bras, use of hands. The first woman feels herself adorned with gems. In the second variation, the woman dances for the man who's not there: longing. The pas de trois is as bravura as this ballet gets. The "Walking" pas de deux: The man is and is not there; he still isn't there, he is there in spirit. Balanchine takes ballet at many levels and mixes them all up. [compare my excerpts of his essay on Giselle: http://ballettalk.invisionzone.com/index.p...mp;#entry214926 (Post #19) What I'm thinking of here is that in Giselle we have someone who is/isn't there; that ballet makes much more of that, of course, and with Balanchine 120 years later, in "Emeralds", it's the man who's there/not there. Or maybe noticing this is not helpful.] "Rubies" is jazzy, saucy American neo-classicism. Sharpness, attack, off-balance. Balanchine loved horses. The pas de deux is maybe a jocket and a filly. Is that a pas de cinq or a filly and four grooms? We also hear horses (demonstrates with his hands) [when the toe shoes strike the stage in unison; at 53:20 on the POB DVD]. He had nicknames for everyone, like "Patricia McBridle" Coaches use terms like "walking the horse", "pulling the reins back" [demonstrates bit near the end of the pas de deux, where the boy pulls the girl to him, each with both their hands]. The four boys gallop around the stage. "Diamonds" is not only an homage to Tchaikovsky and the Nineteenth Century, an homage to Swan Lake, and Sleeping Beauty, it's an homage to Woman. First movement as a swan lake; the twelve girls in a circle make a lake, two more come into it. In the pas de deux, the two principals enter opposite: Regality. Coaches say, You are alone (there's no audience) seeking perfection in ballet, and ballet is woman. He's selected from seven or eight cavaliers to service her: "You [may] support me this evening. Please don't make yourself obvious." As a reward for his service, he's allowed to kiss her hand. It's not about man and woman, it's about woman. Then, a scherzo. The Finale is absolutely brilliant. Patterns, use of space. Balanchine told me at the time of the premiere he was not satisfied with the original set; he wanted a galaxy, a Milky Way. The jewels in the sky. This was technically impossible in 1967. He wanted a galaxy of chandeliers in the finale. Tony Walton, hearing about that, said, "fibre optics." We give you that galaxy of chandeliers. After his talks, Villella takes questions as time allows: A: We restage ballets with a repetiteur from the Balanchine Trust and then we video performances and use those. I have some sense of how to do it, having danced at NYCB for twenty years, but we don't rely on that, although some aspects like "jockey" and "filly" aren't easy to get from video.

Thanks, Paul, for reminding me that "Balanchine's Complete Stories..." is not all first-person essays about his own ballets and synopses by Mason. That is a superb little essay, and I thought I'd copy out a few sentences to share with those who don't have this out-of-print book: "Giselle is a classic: it is not only important historically, it also happens to be good... the work is such a good one that we always discover something in it we hadn't seen before... Giselle has come down to us because it combines innovation with drama and dancing that makes us forget all about history... Giselle's innovation is its summing up of what we know as the romantic ballet. To be romantic about something is to see what you are and to wish for something entirely different. This requires magic... dancers attired in billowy white seemed part of the world and yet also above it... the sylph became ballet's symbol for romantic love -- the girl who is so beautiful, so light, so pure that she is unattainable: touch her, and she vanishes... Purely a creature of the imagination, too illusory a character to make us feel deeply... What would make us care... would be to give her a basis in real life, to make her real and unreal at the same time, like the Wilis, girls who were engaged to be married yet died before their wedding days; their love was never fulfilled because of intervening powers... In the evening they rose from their graves and danced alone in the moonlight, impassioned with their anger at death; but dressed in their flowing bridal gowns and endowed with unearthly gifts of movement, their ghostly forms never seemed to touch the ground. They danced with the young men who came only to trap them: their suitors were compelled to dance until they died... This story made the story of La Sylphide look like merely the first step in the attainment of the romantic ideal... At its first performance... Giselle ou les Wilis was proclaimed the triumphant successor to La Sylphide and the greatest ballet of its time. ..."

Meanwhile, to answer bart's question, Daniel Sarabia and Joseph Phillips were listed in the Diamonds corps all four times in Broward, Zherlin Ndudi twice.

Cristian, I'm glad you like my post -- it was so long I was afraid people would get indigestion from it. But I'm not a south Floridian -- I'm a south Chicagoan! Anyway, now I'm encouraged to say what I think about the music (briefly, excellent, much better than the POB DVD, which I like less the more I play it) and the backdrop (briefly, it starts fine but gets to be overdone by the end, IMO) and summarize some of Villella's pre-performance remarks. He's always interesting, and usually gives insight into appreciating the program.

Treefrog, I suppose I'd like to see the Wilkins-Shives cast, to judge by the comments here. Shives's Billy the Kid was notable for his taking both parts -- young and old Billy -- and aquitting himself really well, and I thought his Petrushka was all the justification the company needed for reviving it. Not that the ballet is named Albrecht, of course, but he has plenty to do.

FWIW, I used to see Kirstein in the center of the first row of the First Ring, about half the times I was somewhere in that section, which was not very often, as I preferred the orchestra; and Villella sometimes sits on the left aisle in the center section of the Au Rene Theatre in the Broward Center for the Performing Arts in Ft. Lauderdale, and used to sit there in the Jackie Gleason Theatre in Miami Beach, too, where I've not been for some time, however. As for working for him: One evening his regiseur (sp?) was sitting in front of him (in Gleason) at the premiere of a revival she had prepared, and while we were giving the dancers some of their deserved applause, he reached forward and patted her on the head...

I enjoyed reading your long post, cubanmiamiboy. Sometimes, thinking about what I've looked at, I come to BT with a sense of wonder about these little works of art which are disappearing even before they're finished with the question "Did you see what I saw?" in my mind, and it helps me to savor their ephemeral beauty to know that others actually did that, too. One of the things that makes BT fun is that although we may use somewhat different words when we talk about similar performances, it's often pretty clear when I read different posts here that we have seen much the same thing happen, don't you think? So here's my contribution. Let's see if it gives someone some benefit: Friday, October 19, 2007 Broward Center for the Performing Arts President Kennedy complained that nothing happened until you read about it in The New York Times, and with all due respect to John Rockwell (whose arrival in the Times's dance department was like a fresh breeze) it was good for it in the person of Alastair Macaulay finally to notice what some of us have known for years, that MCB can dance and does dance Balanchine better than the Kirov or NYCB. (Doesn't POB even rate mention?) How to dance Balanchine is a large topic in itself, and I'm such a slow writer I think I'd better stick to what I think I saw at MCB for now. (cubanmiamiboy, I envy you your dancer's eye for what you see; maybe I'll be so acute, so analytical, some day as you, but as you may see from my posts, I don't perceive technical details so much as respond to the effect of their sequence. I do know what rondes de jambes are, but I'm trying to take in the whole dance as it flows on, so its effect can flow through me.) I think I had first seen MCB's Jewels led off by Mary Carmen Catoya's "Spinner" variation years ago (I had naively allowed for only one traffic jam while crossing Miami to the Jackie Gleason Theatre but encountered two and so was admitted late to the back of the hall on the first applause), and I was struck then by deja vu. It soon became clear I was not looking at Verdy, though, but at someone who was like Verdy not as an imitation, for Verdy didn't even imitate Verdy, or anyone, but as someone who heard the choreography and showed us what she heard. (So it is with MCB generally.) Anyway I had high expectations of Catoya this time and I was not the least disappointed. But this time (as on my second and third visits that first weekend years ago) I arrived in good time and was treated to the wonderful opening ensemble, in which Catoya worked so well with Carlos Guerra in the lifts among other wonders that she might have weighed about fifteen pounds, exactly right for this calm, luxurious and voluptuous world beneath the sea. (I am stealing here from the late Robert Garis, because his words from 1968 fit this 2007 performance well.) What was a pleasant surprise, therefore, was Haiyan Wu in the second variation. I've had reservations about Wu as some one very clean and correct, not stiff or anything but remote and detached; but not tonight. What lovely arms! What luscious line! All the way down! All the time! Her variation (Mimi Paul's, originally) used to precede the Verdy one, but Wu's performance was one of the best justifications I've seen for changing the order (which Balanchine did on Verdy's retirement). Wu is tall, too, so all this (contained) splendor was the easier to see. On the other hand, in her pas de deux with Jeremy Cox, he never seemed to take his eyes off her, and so, although she took little notice of him, this part had less of that other-worldly quality it had under Balanchine's supervision, when the man's eyes remained downcast. Nevertheless the steady-stepping strangeness of this dance caught the audience too. Inevitably I compare whatever cast I'm seeing in Rubies with the original, because one of their late-60's performances of it at Ravinia in the Chicago Symphony's summer "festival" there was the single performance that hooked me on ballet. I knew Stravinsky's witty Capriccio intimately at the time, and had not yet learned to listen so closely to everything that came my way, so that Emeralds went past me that first time (like it did you, cubanmiamiboy?) But that first Rubies was riveting. No one has done it like McBride and Villella, although Petra Adelfang and Jeff Herbig, prepared by Victoria Simon, reproduced McBride's sparkle and Villella's swagger to a surprising degree in the early days of Ballet Chicago. (Adelfang and Herbig went off to PNB, I think.) But while there may be favorite details de-emphasised and others stressed in a performance today, in principle, there's nothing wrong -- and a lot right -- with a fresh approach. Renato Penteado was certainly fresh, lighter in effect than Villella was, a little careful even, where Villella was more reckless (even about his own safety, or so it looked) cavorting with his gang of four in the last movement, and he gave an account of the part I'm eager to see again. Jennifer Kronenberg was evidently having a very good, wry time with McBride's part, one of if not the most brilliant in the repertory, but while she did it no injustice, and I want to see it again also, it was Andrea Spiridonakos this time who seemed to me more crisply on top of her demi role, admittedly considerably less demanding than the two principal ones. (She has, for example, the assistance (?) of four cavaliers.) Diamonds began with MCB's pulsing female corps, full of life and yet contained within the musical phrases, bringing the momentum of a sequence almost to rest at the end and then easing into the next one, each girl on her own individually and all together. In the great pas de deux, I was a little bothered at first by very staccato wind-playing in the orchestra, but never mind: I was soon "distracted" from this distraction by the intense beauty of what Deanna Seay, ably partnered by Isanusi Garcia-Rodriguez as her cavalier -- not a danseur noble, mind you, but a priveleged cavalier -- was unfurling on stage. Modest, even small-scaled, richly detailed but unfussy, clean, flowing, faceted, deep. Really spectacular, not blaringly attention-grabbing; you pay attention, and you are quietly overwhelmed as, defying all probability, it continues the whole length of her time on stage. Beautiful to the point of exciting. I was reminded of Makarova (never in this role), with an important difference: Makarova got notoriously slow tempos to show you better, or something, but MCB is better than ABT about that, and Seay worked her quiet wonders in good tempos, without the conductor, Juan Francisco La Manna, putting Tchaikovsky's music to sleep. No one had to give her extra time; never late or rushed, she found all the time she needed. It was already there. As Villella pointed out in his pre-performance remarks, you can't talk about this ballet without mentioning Suzanne Farrell. I remember reading that Farrell famously said "I dance for God" and meant it; Seay may only be dancing for Tchaikovsky (with some considerable assistance from Mr. B). There's no reason for her or anyone to try to be Farrell, not because of the difficulty of that but because it's not worthy. Seay's been with MCB for many years now and done many fine things, but this is far and away the best I've ever seen her do. She's still becoming Deanna Seay, not anyone else, and those lesser gods, the two Russians, must have been pleased tonight. This mere mortal certainly was. Saturday, October 20, 2007, at 2:00 PM Jeanette Delgado debuted, or so I was told, in Emeralds, and the part was not quite so second-nature to her as it was to Catoya, but following Catoya is a thankless position. (Nevetheless, Catoya could follow Verdy and von Aroldingen in my experience, and be very satisfying.) Callie Manning came into the Paul role, with Didier Bramaz; in her variation, I thought La Manna gave her easier tempos. Again, not quite so fully acheived IMO as last night. (My seat was five rows closer, Row Q, from where the complexities of the principals' movements among the corps in the ensembles, especially the first movement, was vividly clear and so, more effective.) Rubies was ably led this time by Tricia Albertson and Jeremy Cox, with Allynne Noelle in the eye-popping demi role. Crisper, and maintaining a more upright posture, she was a little more conscientious and less relaxed in the part than Jennifer Kronenberg had been. (I don't mean for a moment that Kronenberg looked uncaring or anything; she was just more "above it".) The "Rubies woman" can take this approach very well, IMO, and I was also glad to see Cox rev up some more amps in his role, giving it more of Villella's power and momentum, even if he didn't become the airborne dynamo Villella had been. No one could, and this was a very fine performance as it was. (Not too surprisingly from the dancer who showed us the powerful Prodigal Son of a few years ago.) Noelle was superb, just a little playful. There's a detail I remember in the second part of the first-movement pas de cinq, after the second irruption of the orchestra, when the corps has gathered upstage left (originally as though in wonder, or even fright, about the events downstage center), when, apparently manipulated by her four boys, the demi turns her back to us and then her upper body is lowered to horizontal and she regards us for an instant from an upside down face. Do I remember correctly that Noelle was the only one of the three girls who took this role who lowered herself/ was lowered to full horizontal and did this? (The others just put their head back a little.) That used to get gasps in the New York State Theatre; it showed everybody was paying attention, performers and audience. Then we had the Catoya-Sarabia "Diamonds", and what an event that was, as is everything Catoya does. The regality of the part was there, and so were details made with a clarity you could use for demonstration purposes, but flowing and completely "natural". That approach can be taken as fitting the strength and independence of the woman in this part -- someone that strong hardly ever really needs the guy, although he is allowed to be around -- but for me, the effect as it went along, while lovely and elegant at each moment, didn't accumulate intensity as Seay's had done. Still, it was really something to see. I was told both that it was Catoya's debut in the part, and that she had done it before in Miami. It was so fully achieved, so secure, to the point of serene (appropriately), I couldn't believe it might be a debut, except that it was Catoya. Rolando Sarabia was everything she needed, evidently, although if you look at the Farrell-Martins video, you will see that he expresses "regard from a distance" for his queen in the passage where he travels and jumps across the space behind her, which I did not see from the three MCB men, who more merely moved and jumped, filling out a pattern. Saturday, October 20, 2007, at 8:00 PM Patricia Delgado came into the Verdy role, broad smile and all, dancing very clearly, so that you could enjoy continuously how her movements nestled in the musical shape, one of Balanchine's essentials, but otherwise I found her too carerful, controlled, and consequently a bit bland. She didn't enliven the role, but if this was another debut, it was not a bad one either. And so while I was hardly bored, I was happily surprised to find Seay in the Paul role, quietly enlivening it, one of the best justifications I've seen for Balanchine's reordering the variations in this ballet when Verdy retired and he had no one who could make such a marvel of the second variation that it seemed a bit of an anti-climax after the first (Paul) one, which I gather is easier to bring off and also used to serve as a set-up for the Verdy variation; now the Verdy variation is used as a set-up for the Paul one, an arrangement which was almost anti-climactic when Catoya preceded Wu, but which went fine when Delgado preceded Seay. "Rubies" had the least satisfactory principal cast this time around. By MCB standards, both women (Jeanette Delgado and Kristin D'Addario) seemed a little vague and unfocussed. Renato Penteado repeated his lighter, clean performance. And this time, I was not so distracted by the complicated lighting changes just after the beginning of the ballet that I noticed the original saucy hips-thrust-forward move was replaced by another, less-effective one. Jennifer Kronenberg and Carlos Guerra led "Diamonds" this evening, and it didn't come across very well for me. I had a sense of being too far from what was happening, but then I realized I was sitting next to the seat where I was so very strongly affected by Seay's performance last night. Again, I hope to see Kronenberg in this again, because she has had such a knowing way with other roles in the past -- Faun, and the Siren in Prodigal Son come immediately to mind -- I can't not think there's more going on here than it seemed. Sunday, October 21, 2007, at 2:00 PM Nearly the same cast as opening night made this guy one happy camper. Catoya was again in fine form in Emeralds, dancing almost like a thistle in the breeze, like Verdy did. Didier Bramaz replaced Cox as Wu's partner. The Delgado sisters, again in the pas de trois, again removed what I think of as the family smile in the sad last movement. (It looked as though Mr. B. was as "down" as we were about Verdy's departure.) Albertson and Spiridonakos returned in Rubies, this time with Alex Wong, who debuted in the dynamo role. A very confident debut it was, too, some of the phrases just a little clipped, but great strength and clarity, and everything Albertson needed, which is really a redundant thing to say, once you know it's MCB that's under discussion. I couldn't recall seeing inadequate partnering here. (Well, the boss was famous as a partner in his day.) Then in Diamonds maybe I got a hint of something about partnering, but I don't know exactly what. Seay, with Rolando Sarabia this time, was magnificent again, until early in the place in the coda where she and her partner dance in the center, when at first she looked a little clouded and out of focus, not up to her earlier standard; but then something got adjusted, her dancing cleared right up and became confident again. She even smiled more brightly than we're used to seeing, and as they exited, she turned her face to Sarabia (exiting behind her) instead of maintaining her profile perfectly into the wing as on Friday. We couldn't tell whether she had a smile or a word for him, but if the guy pulled her out of whatever her bother was, she wasn't the only one feeling gratitude toward him!

Yes, Treefrog and everybody, thank you very much! Treefrog, where do you get the casting? I'd like to work up a short list for the coming weekend, but I don't see that information on their website. I've seen some major Giselles too, such as Fracci and Nagy, not to mention the Makarova-Barishnikov video, and wondered if JBC could really cast this moving tragedy, but hey, it's right here in town, and look at all the enthusiasm for it on Ballet Talk! So I'm up for a good last-minute seat.

(from Ft. Lauderdale) I'm not able to post at length just now, but the (first!) Catoya-Sarabia Diamonds went this afternoon, preceeded by the Albertson-Cox Rubies; they lived up to the expectations expressed above, and maybe then some! They were preceeded by the (first!) Jeanette Delgado-Guerra Emeralds, which was an astonishing debut for her, though bested IMHO by Catoya, with Guerra, last night. Last night's Diamonds was led by Seay with Garcia-Rodriguez, and the contrast reminds me that apples and oranges can both be delicious, and tell Whole Foods' produce department to look out! More from heaven when I can.

My thanks for the link also, Quiggin! The video is still up today. What a treat! (Even if the dancers were a bit in the dark, and there was not enough space around them. Maybe a more sensitive setting on the camera next time? -- I'm not complaining, those are suggestions! Go for it, Jordan!) But I would like to point out, especially for those who may not be able to see the video but who can get the two still pictures: The first picture has an erroneous caption. Those are Deanna Seay and Isanusi Garcia-Rodriguez, rehearsing Diamonds. The second picture is vaguely captioned; in the middle is Andrea Spiridonakos with two girl and two boy corps members -- I can't quite place the dance. Somewhere in Rubies. And while I'm at it, Jordan Levin, the Herald's dance critic, is credited at the end of the video clips, and may have been their instigator. All this is clear enough if you can play the video. So, Helene! Now you've glimpsed them, what do you think?

I can't help this time around treefrog, circumstances preventing me from seeing both programs, so my choice was forced. Nor does the company website describe their repertory, so I guess with Merce you'll have to take your chances! (Sorry for the terrible joke, but I couldn't resist.) If you'll only go to one, maybe pick the one where you can get the better seat location?

I hope you stop banging your head soon enough to stop seeing stars and try seeing Merce on 12th and/or 13th October, Treefrog

I've changed a little since 2003 (thank goodness, eh?), and now I travel to see The Suzanne Farrell Ballet (TSFB) as well as MCB.

deanofdance, your post, and the revelation I think it describes, is music to my eyes. Many of us would like to see more of Farrell's characteristics in others' dancing, in their own way, without any hint of imitation of her, or of anything or anybody. May I congratulate you on your experience? Art should change you.

Thanks, dirac, now I'm even more keen to see this than I was after reading Stanley Kauffmann's review of it in the 23rd June issue of The New Republic. (This review seems to be available online only to subscribers.)

I really wish I knew more about the economics involved, but sometimes the money motive does seem to have beneficial results, if "doing it over" (remastering an old recording) is seized upon as an opportunity for "doing it better". My experience with reissues of music recordings is more extensive than with ballet videos, but they both show that progress is not automatic; newer is not always better. But every so often somebody gets it right, and if you're ready (equipped to play it), and aware (of the high-quality reissue job), it's a lot like those experiences we shell out for in the theatre, and it's repeatable!

Even though I have a hunch the people discussing the recent revival and restored film of this ballet elsewhere won't see this post, this looks like the forum for the question that's come up a few times: Where did the Act I Divertissements go? Having seen them and having seen Farrell's revival and lately the restored film of the preview performance, I find myself yet again in agreement with her judgement, this time that these dances are worth seeing, but as a separate suite. Still, I'm curious, as was perky. After the Washington premiere of the film, I asked someone who'd seen the production at NYCB (as well as the revival) this question, and he said that it was hard to remember because every time he saw Balanchine's Don Quixote, it was different, but he thought they were where the villagers dance in the square originally and again today in the revival, replacing those dances. Does anybody else remember? Meanwhile, for those who are interested, here's a guide to getting a glimpse of the divertissements on the Kennedy Center web site: First visit this page: http://kennedy-center.org/programs/millenn...2&year=2007 Then scroll down to the February 23, 2007 performance, and click on the "Watch this Performance" link. If your system shows you the video, you can navigate back and forth in it with my timings: http://ballettalk.invisionzone.com/index.php?showtopic=24253 (See Post #10)

Those who enjoyed the "trick photography"-like effect of Nureyev's dancing in this film might like to compare Farrell's in the restored Don Quixote film to start showings at the NYPL tomorrow, I believe. (A NY friend, BTW, though not on NYPL staff, thinks it'll be generally available for viewing in the library starting the 20th.) Anyway, spectacular as N's sequences are, F does much more complex ones, to my eye. Even more spectacular? What do you think?

Another detail a friend mentioned a few days after the Kennedy Center showing is Balanchine's activity even when blindfolded, late in Act II. He never really "goes dead" (my term) on stage.

Natalia wrote It does. It did, most evenings. And then there were the matinees! bart wrote This reminds me of something a little OT, but one evening, operating according to my discovery that, to a considerable extent, I remembered more if I saw less, and not getting on well with the music for Brahms-Schoenberg Quartet, I had finished my conversations on the Promenade of the New York State Theatre at the end of the second intermission, and, all by myself, started down the steps to the lobby on my way out, when guess who I passed walking up those steps, all by himself, to see Karin von Aroldingen's debut (in the second movement, I think)? I think I blushed. (I did eventually see and get to know BSQ, of course, and many years later, I thought it made a conclusion to a program of SFB like the Rocky Mountains make a backdrop for Denver: Everything before it looked puny by comparison.)

Hmmm. About that time machine, ViolinConcerto... Is that one you've used before? I've always wanted to try one, but I never wanted to be the first one...

On 8th September 2007, as part of the Kennedy Center's free Open House Festival, an even dozen dancers from TSFB performed a short program of excerpts from the troupe's upcoming Thanksgiving-week run, in the 320-seat Family Theatre. It was a Balanchine mini-marathon: The same cast presented the same program three times, on the half-hour, starting at 3:30. On the little stage, from too close a seat, the dancers verged on looking gigantic! From a few rows farther back, things came well into perspective in this well-raked-up hall. First, there was the first half of Bugaku, in rather simplified costumes which I felt kept the spirit of the originals with appropriate filminess and colors, with Natalia Magnicaballi and Jared Redick as principals, and Gina Artese, Kara Genevieve, Elisabeth Holowchuk, Andrew Kaminski, Benjamin Lester, Marcelo Martinez, and Matthew Prescott in the corps. Magnicaballi is always a great pleasure to see, and this time the combination of outer cool added to her customary inner warmth she brought to the role made me eager to see her do the whole part. (And maybe on a larger stage, the whole group will not be a little subdued.) While Redick was not quite so intimidating as Villella or even Bonnnefous had been, he was true to the part; helped along by what looked like a combination of body makeup and suntan, he projected the idea that you didn't want to cross this guy. Second came the Don Quixote excerpt, introduced by Artese, Genevieve, and Relle, who had changed into black now, and had a reddish backdrop. Shortly Holowchuk, in bright red and black, danced with superb crisp clarity, the while maintaining a deadpan expression as though there were an element of parody here, a faint reference to another Don Q? Or direct contact with us? So it seemed to me. Then she was joined by Prescott, whose companionship gave her a different involvement, and the other girls returned to conclude. You might have thought a "mere" pas de deux would go in the middle, with ensemble dances to open and close, but no such stale formulas, sometimes seen elsewhere, seem to deflect Farrell's intuition; the Chaconne pas de deux, danced with beautifully elegant nuance by Bonnie Pickard, with Runqiao Du's usual sharp distinctness seeming to me rather softened this time, was heavenly enough (and costumed in the requisite white), after the worldly though worthy predecessors, to end the little program on a high plane. Nor was this just my estimate; the audience gave these two their warmest thanks too.