Jack Reed

I thought there was a surge in the applause when Farrell appeared for a curtain call, but FF is right; in my experience, she rarely appears in such a situation. Anyway, I found some of Michael Crabb's remarks very insightful and would like to share my notes from a couple of his talks over the first weekend. (It took me a while to get his start time right, 45 minutes before curtain; getting there an hour before curtain isn't too early. The time is printed on the ticket, but in the smallest type there.) He didn't say exactly all the same things each time, and these are only from my own sketchy notes and don't give a comprehensive representation of his talks, which ran half an hour. Mainly, I tried to write down what was most interesting to me, although Crabb also had a lot of good stuff for the benefit of the less initiated: We should thank Lenin and Marx that Balanchine, and thus his Don Quixote, are here. If it weren't for the Russian revolution, he wouldn't have come. Balanchine pushed classical ballet in new directions, so ballet looked very different. Is his Don quixote a throwback? The old Russian version is very entertaining... Is Don Quixote mad? Madness is a social construct... The core of Balanchine's Don Quixote is a serious one, it's not all happy, happy: This man keeps trying because he wants the unattainable woman, he strives for the sublime unattainable... He is inspired - some might argue misled - by his reading of medieval tales of chivalry to seek redemption by venturing into the world to right wrongs and defend the innocent. Artists as outside society. Don Quixote was spurned and bullied. How represent his fantasy? The Don was an old man, not a 'dancer' role. So how to make him a central figure? Balanchine also lacked the idealized woman for that role, until Suzanne Farrell came along. He had made his reputation stripping away excess. For him, dance was justified in itself. This was a revolution. So what was Balanchine on about with this ballet? True, he had made a Nutcracker, and A Midsummer Night's Dream. What's fantasy and what is in the naturalistic world? Balanchine throws the audience member off. Don Quixote is abused by people he tried to help. There are parallels with Balanchine's own story, but you see what you see, including some symbolism. Some of it is the story of a 61-year-old man and a 19-year-old ballerina... Early on, she dries his feet with her hair, an image of Mary Magdelene... It's really anything but a big 19th Century ballet; it has a modern score, and many dark, disturbing moments. Modern steps, though. It's the modern rendering of an old concept. Dulcinea's theme is an old Russian folk theme Balanchine heard in childhood and gave to Nicholas Nabokov. This is the Canadian premiere. No previous Balanchine ballet at NBoC has been a dramatic one. Suzanne Farrell wrote an account of the making of Don Quixote in the house program.

Yes, TutuMaker, thanks for that richly-colored, well-tailored and finely-stitched review! You really live up to your screen name, and reading what you wrote brought back much of the pleasure of seeing the performances. You and kfw and MDNJ inspire some random comments: I think Pickard has a little tic, which shows sometimes, and it reminds me that dancers are human, I guess, although those on Pickard's level make it hard to comprehend that propostion as a mere fact: What these - humans? yes, I guess they really are after all - do becomes all the more miraculous in the moment, whatever way we may reflect later on what we saw, for the human hints we see in performance. For example, I know in an analytical way that the light on stage is supplied by electric current, but when I saw Pickard's Scotch begin to unfurl there at the rehearsal-tea I thought it had luminosity of its own, as though we could've seen some of it even if they turned the lights off; and kfw calls her performance "radiant" so I think he must have seen this effect too, and so the miracle must really have happened and stirred him to write. (That's what's supposed to happen. Your experience of these worlds is supposed to change you.) But I was up in the First Tier then, and I may have always had more distant seats than you did, TutuMaker; your account reads more "close up." As to the bright red of the demi's costume, I couldn't agree more! (When the company's other prominent redhead, Shannon Parsley wore it, it made her look brunette, it was so bright.) Darker, better, yes! How about dark green jackets, just like the boys wear, the identical costume, kilt, long argyle socks, cap, and all? That's the way I first began to see "Scotch" years ago with Balanchine's company, and part of the fun for me was that the demi was dressed like the boys, but she sure wasn't a boy! (She was usually Marnee Morris or, later, Roma Sosenko, both small, neat, especially clear, quick dancers.) Otherwise, except for the bright red one, the costuming was just as it was years ago, and I agree, they're exactly right for the dances, all of them. (I heard once that Balanchine said he had the costumes, and so, decided to make the ballet. If that's true, no wonder they're appropriate!) And speaking of eye contact, which you noticed in R & J, I noticed a lot of looking into each other's faces in Scotch; it was part of the Sylph-and-James element of that ballet for me: He's under her spell, although Balanchine doesn't spin out the whole story here. And speaking of Parsley, I agree with kfw about her dancing and her smile, in everything she did. It's all genuine, responsive to the moment. The joy in dancing Suzanne Farrell's dancers show onstage compares in my experience only with Edward Villella's dancers in his Miami City Ballet. And Du's dancing is dependably classically pure and clear, and his partnering seems to be among the best in the company, but I agree with MDNJ that Prescott brought his Romeo more spirit. I think even my non-dancer's eye has noticed Du's development in his few years with this troupe, and so I was satisfied to see him in this big dramatic role - development in another direction, maybe. I haven't seen a lot of Bejart's choreography either, MDNJ, although I have some memories of my one look at his Le Sacre du printemps (on Balanchine's published recommendation) years ago, and I can see how one may take the Scene d'amour from his Romeo and Juliet as kitsch, as kfw does - although I think it's partly the choreography that makes us take the lovers to our hearts - but I was constantly struck by how Bejart hears in Berlioz's wonderful music occasion for developing stage action, including the intrusion of the (other) Capulets and Montagues. Even though I don't hear some of these occasions when I listen to the music alone. Berlioz's music doesn't require completion, but, similar to Balanchine but in his different way, Bejart incorporates it into a larger something without looking foolish, as some of the "symphonic" choreographers did, I believe. Sometimes in ballet I'm aware of the choreographer largely ignoring what the music says or what it seems to ask for, using (misusing) instead only the tone and meter, or even imposing something alien on it. In this part of this ballet at least (I understand Bejart has choreographed Berlioz's entire score, about an hour and a half) musical integrity gives it some organic quality. For me, if it's kitsch, and maybe it is, it's kitsch of a high order. As to the costuming and setting of the Scene, I also like simple efficiency - the darkness of the corps keeping it in the (dramatic) background, the brownish and greenish tones distinguishing between the two families - but the huge, accurate moon image on the backdrop bothered me for a while, until it began to dawn on me that this huge, brooding moon gives perspective to the story of these tragic, doomed little mortals: Action over, lives over, the moon still hangs up there, impassively, as though watching, unblinking. Speaking of Bejart's Le Sacre du printemps, there's been regret expressed about its cancellation, twice, but I take heart from Farrell's having programmed it twice. She wants to present it, and so, I think, when she can, she will. And thanks for that insight into Prominski's rendition of the Strip Tease Girl, TutuMaker.

No posts? Nobody went? I looked at the first weekend, but while I'm trying to find some adequate words for my thoughts, here's a link to the thread where we discussed this ballet when it was performed in Edinburgh last August, in less favorable circumstances, as it turns out: http://ballettalk.invisionzone.com/index.php?showtopic=21161 But more to the moment, according to the casting in the printed program, there's only one more opportunity to see Heather Ogden as Dulcinea, on Friday the 22nd at 7:30; Xiao Nan Yu's performances in this immense role - I'm talking import rather than length - were quite creditable and worth seeing, but Ogden's were even more efffective than what I saw her do in Scotland. Absent Ogden, another highlight of casting for me would be Chan Han Goh in the Act II Pas de Deux Mauresque, which she will dance this evening, the 21st, and Saturday evening, the 23rd. I have never seen the NBoC before, and I found it very able, but these two dancers, who not incidentally have worked with Suzanne Farrell, stood out.

I saw the first weekend of Balanchine's Don Quixote from about half-way back in the Orchestra and about half-way from the center line to the side aisle, and from here the distance was just fine (indeed, I think I spotted Karen Kain keeping an eye on things from the end of my row or the next one), the dancing being more effective than from a comparable distance in the huge Edinburgh Playhouse in Scotland, or even from a little closer. The reason seems to be superior lighting, an aspect of the new theatre that hasn't been commented on. It's so good, it looked as though the costumes were made of richer materials than the ones I'd seen in Edinburgh, and the sets and props looked refreshed or repainted, when of course there's surely no money for that. But I agree with the previous praise for the very agreeable color scheme in light wood and grey metal (no garish Lincoln-Center or Kennedy-Center red here, eh?) and the live acoustics. I too found sight-lines marginal. I'm a man who stands five-foot-ten, and only owing to some luck with the people sitting in front of me and the laterally offset seating was I not seriously blocked. A woman I know who stands five-foot-six sitting on the aisle a few rows closer did have to lean this way and then that to deal with the person in front of her, so I think Noreen Arnold's question is quite pertinent. (Even if it was only intended to be rhetorical.) I have the opposite kind of question, about those acoustics: I had thought for years that good acoustics required good sight-lines, because otherwise the heads in front of you absorbed some of the sound which would have got to you in their absence, but here we have a challenge to that rule. (Those who want to dig into this might look for George Izenour's book, "Theatre Design" in the library; the price of the out-of-print first edition was up to US$105 recently, and the new second edition was US$216, IIRC. It was much cheaper when it first came out. *sigh* I recall that Izenour includes a treatment of John Scott Russell's 1859 "Isacoustic curve" concept in an appendix.) Nor is the ceiling low toward the front, which I also thought contributes. So how come the acoustics are so good? The other unusual thing about R. Fraser Elliott Hall in my experience is the bare floor, and I suspect the lack of absorptive material contributes to the liveness.

From someone who's "not much of a critic" kfw, that was really good to read. Thank you, and I hope you won't be so hesitant in the future.

carbro, I hate to tell you that's a bad guess; it was exactly to do with what she had on, as she made plain by touching her clothing as she spoke. I might have included that, but I was fading at the time I posted, sorry. I did get to both rehearsal-teas (interesting concept, that), and because they were open rehearsals, which anyone could buy a ticket to, I think I'm not breaking any of our rules by describing one particular moment I will cherish, about Farrell herself: She doesn't perform on stage any more but she still certainly cuts a fine figure: She strolled down the cross aisle after an intermission, chestnut hair, cream colored sport coat, dark slacks, erect, slim, with a little black and dark grey poodle on a taut leash. Very chic, I thought. In keeping with the standards of honesty and accuracy we maintain here at BT, I have to admit I'm prejudiced, but I just thought she looked terrific.

Here's what I have from tonight's short discussion with Martin Duberman & Suzanne Farrell on Lincoln Kirstein and George Balanchine, before I crash in bed. If you can't figure out the initials, ask: Compare LK and GB? MD: Like fire and ice. K was on fire inside, he couldn't ever be satisfied. K's artistic contributions to the SAB and NYCB? MD: In the first few years he made suggestions about designers etc. After that B consulted him rarely. Ballet Caravan (about two dozen dancers) emphasized "American" dancing. K felt B was contemptuous of him sometimes. SF: He went around and made sure everything was done so we wouldn't worry where our toe shoes would come from and could concentrate on dancing. Now I have my own company I appreciate what he did. Would any of you like to be a LK? There's no college course that teaches that. MD, what qualified you to write about LK? I became a balletomane in the 50s. We have some common background: Both our fathers were poor and made the money in the family; we're both Jewish and gay. There's always more than one biography; no one person can empathise completely with such a large subject. I got to read what he wrote. SF: Reading LK was difficult. I always have a dictionary beside me. His writing was simple and complex, powerful. It always supported B. I don't know why I'm here except L gave me this outfit after the Don Quixote premiere. MD: LK ws a terrifying figure at the NY State Theatre. The formidable exterior protected a sensitive soul. He wanted nothing in return for what he did, often helping people in such a way they didn't know who had done it. In writing the book I grew to love the man.

(from Washington, DC) No fair, koshka! From the first row you can see with the stage lights practically out! Program B began its run tonight (Friday 8th June) with a fine cast. Inevitably I compared Mozartiana with the one I saw Saturday afternoon in New York. Bonnie Pickard was more expansive than Kyra Nichols had been, although Nichols had other virtues, like greater serenity, and I'm glad to have seen both. (Pickard's later variations, numbers 5 and 7 in the last movement, I think, were a little slow though beautifully spun out.) Jared Redick made his first appearance this season, I think, as Pickard's partner, and suffered some by comparison with Philip Neal's clarity, although the matter of conscientiousness was not out of the picture with Neal as it was with the two ballerinas, who simply made the ballet their own, but both men appeared to be all their partners needed. But Kirk Henning gave a more satisfying performance of the Gigue than NYCB's Tom Gold, approaching a full realization of it in contrast to Gold's conscientiousness and frequent heaviness. Romeo and Juliet got another superb realization by Ashley Hubbard and Matthew Prescott, and then after the pause the company premiere of Divertimento Brilliante from Glinkiana; I think Mr. B once refered to Glinka as "our [Russian] Mozart" and the relative, Mozartean simple, direct clarity of this little pas de deux, danced exactly this way by Shannon Parsley and Momchil Mladenov, was refreshing after the richness of the Bejart excerpt. The program ended with Slaughter, in which Kirk Henning turned out to be a much better tapper than Kurt Froman had been, and projected some of the mime details more clearly too; Elisabeth Holowchuk as the Strip Tease Girl was less effective up on the runway than on the floor, but I believe this was her debut, and she may fill in her part later on. The hour is late, so after reporting that I thought the orchestra was generally even better than in previous programs, with the conspicuous exception of the end of the violin cadenza in the fourth movement of Mozartiana, which went out of tune, I'll let the words of a woman in the row behind me, spoken as she prepared to leave, sum matters up: "I liked them all. Usually there's one I specially like or don't like, but I liked 'em all."

(from Washington, DC) koshka, I'll be very interested to read what happens in the Saturday afternoon movement class. I'd find out first-hand but I've been in much better shape, and that's the way I'd rather be for it. TutuMaker, will internet access in Foggy Bottom be a problem? There is some public access around 24th Street. At L Street, the West Side Neighborhood Library is open Sunday from 1 to 5 and Monday from 9:30 to 9; and at 2400-D M Street, there's a FedEx-Kinko's, but that's $15/hr. (Okay, technically this is West End, not Foggy Bottom.) What's this about? With a screen name like TutuMaker, you could have an eye more like a dancer's than I do, and write better posts, and I'd like to read them. That said, I thought Thursday's casting was a little against type, or something. The story keeps coming up: Dancer: "Mr. B, I don't think I'm ready for this role." Balanchine: "That's why you have to do it, dear, that's how you get ready for it." In Scotch, Pickard's partner was Mladenov, and his hand-to-hand supporting often shook; she seemed maybe a little unsettled compared to Wednesday night with Du. Otherwise their dancing together was excellent, smooth ascents and soft landings in lifts, and so on. Among the nuances of her performance, her looking into her partner's face in changing ways, now coolly with head slightly up, now challenging with head lightly lowered, etc., while not made much of, helped make her performance complete, as Patricia McBride's had been, although I didn't see any imitation (and don't particularly want to). I think both ballerinas found what they showed us in the part themselves. Mladenov's dancing was very fine, with some nice mime touches here and there. Matthew Prescott came into Mozart, and there were some more shaky hand-to-hand grips. Elisabeth Holowchuk looked less happy this time in this unusual pas de deux: The choreographer who famously said, "Put a boy and girl on stage, it's already a story" here shows us more "story" than that. At one point, they even walk along hand in hand, smiling at each other. And I'll record here one of my reservations about the lighting in this ballet, which still has maybe the best of the program: It's simple, open and clear, uniform across the stage, and that's good; but toward the end, two measures into the violin cadenza on which Holowchuk has a long, interesting solo which we want to be able to see better, the lighting designer, Jeff Bruckerhoff, chooses to dim the lighting slightly, making it harder to see her instead. This fussing is all too common today. Then in Romeo and Juliet, Runqiao Du, a very strong classicist in general and Pickard's superb partner last night, didn't have much of the extra something - characterization? - this needs, compared to Prescott last night. But Katelyn Prominski, an announced sub for Lisa Reneau as the Strip Tease Girl in Slaughter, gave us a large and lush performance of this role. So if it was not quite up to the high standard of opening night, the program ended strong.

(from Washington, DC) The idea expressed last fall and appearing just above about gaining admission to Suzanne's events on a half-hour's notice seem a little optomistic now, after I was told weeks ago they were sold out; she's a big draw, around here at least, and at a contributors' dinner before the performance this evening I met some more people who came from other parts of the country for this. Anyway, I've just returned from the opening performance and seeing the semi-dress rehearsal (some dancers were in costume, some weren't; sometimes they danced full, sometimes they marked) this afternoon. It's the latest stop in a kind of ballet Odyssey I'm on, having seen the wonderful Vishneva for the first time, in Ashton's The Dream with ABT, Nichols's lovely last (sniff) Mozartiana with NYCB, a bunch of satisfying youngsters at the SAB Workshops, including some amazing 10- to 14-year-olds dancing Sean Lavery's charming little Twinkliana and a vibrant Gounod Symphony (or 3/4 of it) by slightly older teens. And you know what? At the rehearsal already, Bonnie Pickard and Runqiao Du blew it all away for me with a variably luminous, present, vital performance of Scotch Symphony, that was a lot like the old days in Balanchine's theatre, except maybe Farrell's orchestra was better and the demi (Shannon Parsley) was not quite the equal of Marnie Morris or Roma Sosenko (or maybe it's her brilliant red costume, formerly dark green, that makes it a little hard to apppreciate her fully because of its glare). And then in the evening, the marvelous rehearsal turned out to have been a wonderful harbinger for the steadily, miraculously achieved realization of this beautiful, dramatic, plotless ballet. And then we had the Concierto de Mozart Adagio you can make out pretty well in the webcast, except of course this one was much more effective partly by being easier to see; Elisabeth Holowchuk and Momchil Mladenov continued pretty much at the same high level. Then after I had seen Bejart's love scene from Romeo and Juliet, which seems fully to flesh out Berlioz's wonderful score, some of the best music ever written for any purpose, I felt even more strongly that the corresponding scene from Martins's new setting of the difficult Prokofiev music, which had turned up on the Workshop program, was like little more than clear water thrown on warm rocks to evaporate into nothing, having nearly no effect to remember. By contrast, Bejart and Berlioz conjure up a great deal in a quarter hour; Ashley Hubbard and Matthew Prescott realized the whole stream of shifting modes and moods in this as a continuous flow, a journey through a microcosm, the world writ small. The trouble with Slaughter on Tenth Avenue, some of us thought, is that the much-repeated theme threatened to repeat itself in our heads for days, but thinking back over the rest of the program to write about it may have saved me! It's a good time, and plainly ingenious; the show-within-a-show aspect being only one way the master keeps this bubbling along, and the cast's verve and Ron Matson's tempos supply much energy. Momchil Mladenov is perfectly cast as Morrosine, and Lisa Reneau makes the Strip Tease Girl live (even after she "dies"). (This program has five murders in it, including a couple of Capulets and Montagues.) But in my recent experience, the Thug* to beat is still Edward Villella. Farrell speaks sometimes of Balanchine's ballets as "worlds". In her theatre, as in his, we experience them vividly, as though walking their ground and breathing their air, not as though looking out through a tour-bus window. (I'm thinking of the ABT Symphonie Concertante I saw with The Dream, for example of a world seen distantly.) We feel different from when we began our trip, refreshed, we've had some re-creation, we are restored to ourselves and better for it. Better than a vacation! And no jet lag! *Gangster is the correct character title; Thug is a different character in this, who gets bumped off early. You'd think a Chicagoan like me would know the difference.

(from New York City) I'm in more or less agreement with what's been said, having seen the dress rehearsal and all three performances, but we've left Dale's question about Gounod a little up in the air, and I thought I'd explain here that that's where I think it's likely going to be for now, as the minuet third movement was entirely omitted this time around. For what it's worth, Croce wrote about the revival in 1985 that "Originally, the third movement was danced entirely by groups. Balanchine, after a season or two, inserted entrees for the principals, and these are the only parts of his choreography that have been lost. Peter Martins made new choreography that passes for authentic Balanchine. ..."

Ballet Chicago Studio Company presents their tenth anniversary repertory program 19th and 20th May 2007 in the Athenaeum Theatre, 2936 N. Southport in Chicago; Saturday's performances are at 2:00 and 7:30 and Sunday's is at 3:00. BCSC is a mostly pre-professional group consisting of some of the older students of Daniel Duell and Patricia Blair's school, Ballet Chicago, augmented by some alumni of the school. This year the visiting alumni are Genevieve Custer, Alicia Fabry, Luke Manly, Julie Niekrasz, Brian Rothlesburger, and Shannon Ye. The repertory this time consists of Balanchine's Serenade and Who Cares?, a new ballet, Prelude and Fugue, to Bach, and a recent one, Mono No Aware, to Glass, both by Duell, and another new work, Fragile, This Side Up, to "various artists," by recent alumnus Ted Seymour. Ticket prices range from $12 for children and students to $20 and $30 for adults. More details, including thumbnail pictures of this repertory and some larger ones of previous seasons' performances of Serenade, Stars and Stripes, and other ballets, are at http://www.balletchicago.org/studio/springrepertory.html Those who wish to deal with the Athenaeum Theatre box office rather than with Ticketron (312-902-1500) will have to do so in person, I'm told, and should find out the box office's hours at 773-935-6860; they don't take phone orders, evidently.

It's a puzzling offer, bart. Part of the fun in reading multiple posters about the same performance is seeing whether, if I read between the lines, it is the same performance. And "underneath" the fun, there is for me great value in discovering that others did see what I saw - that's the value in the foyer discussions at intermission I've always thought motivated Alexandra to start BalletTalk - our discussions give some "objectivity" and "permanence" to this most ephemeral of arts, one which cannot be written down or even recorded very well, unlike drama or music. Or, in fewer words, "The more the merrier" for me!

I've lately added some information to my post (#10) to make it more useful to viewers of the webcast. Finding that is not obvious from the Kennedy Center home page, so here's a link to a page where you can search for it: http://www.kennedy-center.org/programs/mil...um/archive.html And while we're blessing the Kennedy Center's webmaster, let's also remember the George Balanchine Trust, probably in the person of Barbara Horgan, for allowing the webcast. That's not automatic, as I understand her/their mission. Also, I recommend Leigh Witchell's review of the performance on Dance View Times: http://www.danceviewtimes.com/2007/Winter/09/farrell.html I agree with Leigh's remark about the synthesizer rendition of the music for the Don Q Divertissements, but I think the situation may be that no orchestra has played this part of Nabokov's music for such a long, long time that no recording of it was available, unlike the rest of the program.

(from Washington, DC) Thanks for the "free-standing work of art" phrase, flipsy! That's actually how I usually look at something, and I neglected to say that. In my response-to-a-response phrase, I just wanted to suggest that the anti-war aspect was peripheral. I too think the thing-in-itself is the important thing, or in fewer words, "You said it!" But on a minor point, I must in all modesty report that it is possible to take the circling white corps as something other than "radar", because for years I've thought of those girls with their arms straight out to the sides as circling airplanes! I like "radar" much better, it's less literal, more metaphorical. (Do you suppose Mr. B. knew how radar antennas rotate steadily, and how on a radar screen there's a corresponding line sweeping steadily around, marking out the location of airplanes and ground objects?) And the business in the pas de deux where the dancers rise and descend, with their bent arms held horizontally, as "helicopters" is wonderful. I knew I'd seen that somewhere before in life, but I hadn't made the connection. As Bernard ("B. H.") Haggin observed, everything Balanchine saw turned up in his ballets eventually. But as to the lessened effect of Symphony in Three Movements today, I think that MCB simply doesn't give it quite the impact that Balanchine's company did. They come close, though, and they go beyond merely revealing the greatness of the work. (SFB's rendition at the Kennedy Center a few years ago was rather less thrilling, I thought.)

(from Washington, DC) My favorite was the Mozart Adagio, where the choreographer seemed to me to show such consideration for his composer-collaborator's marvelous contribution, and within, a little - drama? - situation? - so delicate it was scarcely there. ("Put a boy and girl onstage, already it's a story.") And that soft, poignant punctuation at the end, where she runs off, he follows - and then stops, arm extended after her. And the Brillante was delicious, and deliciously danced. Yes, I have seen the Variations look a little more effective in recent performances by Ms. Pickard; I thought Shannon Parsley's effect was a little hampered on this occasion by a black costume instead of scarlet (originally, raspberry), and yet newer, different choreography for the three "interludes" (variations in eleven voices), which recently, in Ms. Farrell's revival, though not in her performances of the original I saw, have involved wonderfully playful business with the dancer's "shadow" (a "shadow" which develops surprising independence, but whose appearance requires technical facilities which may not have been available this time), which seems to me to enlarge the little ballet and extend its original spirit. The new material this time seemed less certain and direct. But for me Natalia Magnicaballi's magnificent dancing greatly benefitted the Don Q pas de deux. Where these "additional divertissements" went originally is one thing, where they will go is another; I understand that they're not likely to go back into Don Q but continue in their own world, as a separate little suite. As for the future, I've mentioned above the Monday evening performance of, I think, the Bejart Romeo and Juliet, and I gather that the June and November repertory will be announced a few days later, on 6th March on the Kennedy Center website. It is a treat to see "new" Balanchine. For me, Balanchine danced as these dancers dance is always new.

(from Washington, DC) from the printed program, which matched the faces I knew; there were no subs announced: [05:19] ADAGIO from CONCIERTO DE MOZART ([second movement of] Violin Concerto in A, K. 219) Ashley Hubbard and Matthew Prescott [12:47] CONTRAPUNTAL BLUES PAS DE DEUX from CLARINADE (excerpt: Derivations for Clarinet and Jazz Band, by Morton Gould) Elisabeth Holowchuk and Benjamin Lester [19:40] GLINKA PAS DE DEUX BRILLANTE (Divertimento Brillante on themes from Bellini's La Sonnambula) Bonnie Pickard and Neil Marshall [27:08] VARIATIONS FOR ORCHESTRA (Variations in Memory of Aldous Huxley, by Igor Stravinsky, 1965) Shannon Parsley PAS CLASSIQUE ESPANOL DIVERTISSEMENTS from Balanchine's DON QUIXOTE (commissioned music by Nicholas Nabokov) [33:00] Trio Gina Artese, Kristen Gallagher and Sara Ivan [35:07] Duet Elisabeth Holowchuk and Lisa Reneau [36:58] Solo Shannon Parsley [38:49] Pas de deux Natalia Magnicaballi and Kirk Henning The program ran about forty minutes. I don't know what documentation accompanies the Millennium Stage webcasts, so this may supplement that. Look for the appearance of the webcast of this performance in the online archive early next week. (18th March 2007, from Chicago) In view of the lack of documentation in the webcast and after a little experience with RealPlayer, I've added a little about the music as well as the running-time indications at the beginning of each dance. With a little practice, I find you can use these numbers to access the individual dances by nudging the slider button, which moves horizontally under the display window in RealPlayer, with the mouse cursor, watching the indicator until the reading is close to what I've given above; in my experience, your computer system may then need a few moments to adjust, and then the video begins to play at the point you've selected.

While I don't disagree with flipsy really, I find bart's comment carrying the discussion toward my own position of the moment: Stravinsky wrote out of his feelings about the (then recent) events in the Europe he knew, and when Balanchine made his ballet, he listened to what he heard, much as he did when he made The Four Temperaments; remember (if I have this right), Balanchine hadn't much interest in Medieval thought, but Hindemith had great interest in it, and objectified some of that in his music. So I think the idea of this as an anti-war ballet is a bit of a stretch (although Villella is right to say it - he wants to engage us with what he presents), but I take it as a response to Stravinsky's response to the war. Have you seen the choreographer's remarks about this in Balanchine's Complete Stories...? He writes, "[T]he [movements] I arranged for this music follow no story line or narrative. They try to catch the music and do not, I hope, lean on it, using it instead for support and time frame... What is really interesting is the complexity and variety of the music, from the propulsive drive and thrust of the vigorous opening (which also closes the ballet) to the developed use, almost like a concerto, of the piano in the first movement, the harp in the second and the two together in the finale... [P]araphrasing Stravinsky, how and in what form the things of this world are impressed upon my dance is not for me to say." I don't mean the discussion ends here, but this is the line along which I personally make my best progress into his ballets.

I've just posted what little I know about these upcoming performances in the Heads Up! forum: http://ballettalk.invisionzone.com/index.p...=0entry198363

Washington ballet's best-kept secret? There'll be a free performance by (some of?) the Suzanne Farrell Ballet and maybe some guest artists who have been participating in Ms. Farrell's Balanchine Preservation Initiative these past three weeks or so; as I've indicated, just who will dance is not clear, at least, not to me. It's in the Kennedy Center's Millenium Stage series, and that is the only place it's been listed on their web site as far as I know (but what do I know? - read on, it doesn't take long to tell), so that it will run from 6:00 to 7:00 PM on Friday 23rd February at the Kennedy Center, but not on the Millenium Stage, but rather in the 513-seat Terrace Theatre, on the Roof Terrace level. (I've never been in either venue, but the virtual tour of the Terrace Theatre looks to confirm what I've been told, that the seats there are nicely raked up for good sight lines.) Anyway, those attending will have time to get downstairs to the Bolshoi performance at 7:30, if they want. And, as Millenium Stage events always are, it's FREE. What's the repertory? Concierto di Mozart, Clarinade (in its four-movement entirety? don't know, sorry), "additional divertimenti" from Don Quixote, Variations for Orchestra, and "Divertimento Brilliante", the fourth movement pas de deux conclusion to Glinkiana, of which all we've seen for a long time is the second movement, Valse Fantaisie. I'll post more here if, as, and when I find it out. Oh, I'm told Farrell's dancers are also participating in a Shakespeare in Washington event in the Shakespeare Theatre at 7:30 PM on Monday, the 26th. They will share the program with the Washington National Opera and the Washington Ballet, concentrating on Romeo and Juliet; I expect a performance of the Bejart ballet, to the "Love Scene" from the Berlioz music. This has been sold out for some time, I'm told, but Washingtonians may know this game better. Adding a link to some previous discussion here: http://ballettalk.invisionzone.com/index.p...let++Washington

After a little poking around Arkivmusik.com, I think both these CD's, "Dancepieces", Sony 90394, and "Glassworks", CBS Masterworks 39539, contain only Dances 1, 2, 5, 8, and 9 from In the Upper Room, FWIW.

bart, your analogy for Lilac Garden goes in the right direction, because these people are like creatures trapped in an artificial situation, that's much of the point of the ballet, and Caroline is quite vulnerable. But so is her fiance''s former lover, and, as we see, her fiance': There's a moment toward the end where both women, one after another, go away from him, and he changes his direction from one to the other, moving his right hand against his side nervously, which Mason interprets (correctly, I think) as a sign of a moment's despair at possibly having lost them both. And then at the very end, Caroline's lover reaches yearningly after her as she and her fiance' go off, before he turns away, facing upstage, clasping his hands behind his back as the curtain falls; he's also caught in this tragedy of manners. So they're all vulnerable, and suffering, although Caroline is central. (Maybe your analogy fits another staging of this ballet more closely. ABT? IMO, it would be like them to do half the job, or less.) No, I can't imagine anyone warming up to this one, we feel too much anguish. That's a cold feeling, and it's good to have it purged by "Symphony 3" with its expansive energy and light. (Notice already in the first movement, at the end of the "pink" girl's circle of turns among the circling white corps, how she sails off downstage left, still turning: She could still be sailing along somewhere forever!) This is not just a big cast (32 dancers), it's as huge and breezy a ballet as Lilac Garden is small and claustrophobic. Just what we need to conclude. Having put this program together, Edward Villella took good care of us.

The Sunday matinee performance of Raymonda Variations was led by Katia Carranza, who was excellent - lovely, clear, secure - although she was not Mary Carmen Catoya! Carranza's loveliness here contrasted appropriately with her bright sharpness in Symphony in Three Movements; she doesn't just give everything the same delivery, although I would say her dancing of "Symphony 3" is more "standard" than Kronenberg's. We see the difference, as soon as either dancer (in pink) appears at upstage center in the first movement of "Symphony 3", flanked by corps, as the girl (in red) in the first couple exits left downstage: Carranza's demeanor is more head up and open, while Kronenberg refelects in her rendition some of the ominous character of the music, with slightly lowered head and a more serious, not to say grim, expression. Luis Serrano was in his usual role again as her very able partner in Raymonda, and my favorite soloist in the variations this time was Patricia Delgado, in the fifth one. Lilac Garden was performed by the second cast again, and Symphony in Three Movements was performed by Friday night's cast, except that Allynne Noelle took over Patricia Delgado's role, as the girl in orange, in the third couple to appear, with the good, straightforward Alexandre Dufaur, who danced this at all four performances in the Broward Center. Andrea Spiridonakos, as the girl in red, with the fine Jeremy Cox, seemed a little less playful than on Friday night, but still superb, looking "right" for this in a little different way.

(from Fort Lauderdale, Florida) Saturday evening (10th February), Jeanette Delgado was replaced in Raymonda Variations by the Catoya phenom, so I got two exposures to her miraculous dancing in one day! I'm not sure I could ever get used to this, but it would be nice to try! And all the five soloists acquitted themselves well in the variations, with Ashley Knox leaving behind some traces of apparent difficulty she had shown previously in the first one. This is the variation that ends with a long series of hops in arabesque down the diagonal to downstage left in which she only changes the carriage of her arms; it has looked like a killer, but Knox brought it off with apparent ease last night. But Catoya! Oh, my! One miracle after another! Lilac Garden (which I almost just called Lilac Variations, such is the effect this morning of seeing Catoya in Raymonda Variations twice yesterday) had its first cast again. and for me it benefitted from my having seen the second one. It really needs Kronenberg at its center, and Seay in her more distant orbit, so to speak, and so, with them there, it nearly "worked" for me, but I was aware later how much time I spend "reading" this ballet, while in the other two, listening closely provides all the entry I need into what I see. Sitting in row U I got the power from the orchestra I wanted in Symphony in Three Movements when I sat in row P the previous evening, and I'm sure it wasn't because they played louder. (The sound man confirmed this. He does not amplify the orchestra for the audience, only for the dancers.) But farther back, I got less "power" from the stage. On the other hand, row U in the Au Rene Theatre in the Broward Center is not a bad place to see "Symphony 3" because there's a little elevation there. bart, I do hope you get a chance to see Kronenberg in "Symphony 3", not becasue Carranza is wrong for it - she's right, actually, this is MCB - but because Kronenberg brings not only her "unthinking knowing" to it, but some technical niceties too, like at the end of the second movement, the pas de deux: The choreography has the woman run down the diagonal to the left and jete' and run off, and Carranza does this fine. But jete' is French for "jump", right? What is the French word for "float"? This is what Kronenberg does, just for a moment, without seeming to go up in the air, she is up there, floats there a moment, and then she's down and off. (Okay, this kind of thing is more important than the ribbons in her hair!) As to preparing yourself, do look for Reynolds's "Repertory in Review", with its long description of "Symphony 3" and Balanchine and Mason's "Balanchine's Complerte Stories..." for its long account (not entirely in agreement with this staging) of Lilac Garden. Maybe in your main library. The Broward County one is pretty good, even having the ABT video of Garden which this non-resident wasn't allowed to use.

Okay, you asked for it... (from Fort Lauderdale, Florida) Saturday afternoon, Catoya did repeat the miracle, and in addition Luis Serrrano's variations seemed to me more sharply drawn and more clearly detailed than last night, although, as always, it could have been me. And among the soloists, Charlene Cohen, in Variation II, was especially enjoyable from the first moment she scampered out to perform it. Lilac Garden had a different cast (including Wu as Caroline and Daymel Sanchez as Her Lover this time) and was more danced and less acted than opening night, except for Jeremy Cox as the Fiance'; Cox does a lot with just a turn of the head, and his portrayal was more developed and nuanced than Sanchez's seemed to me last night. For one example, late in the ballet, where he repulses his former lover, the woman in blue (Callie Manning), Cox very clearly but subtly caught the fierceness of this rejection Francis Mason speaks of in his account of Lilac Garden (three pages of small pint!) in Balanchine's Complete Stories.... Finally, Symphony in Three Movements brought me the second amazement of the afternoon: Jennifer Kronenberg's enlarging but almost casual rendition of the pas de deux woman's role, with Carlos Guerra as her partner, taking a simpler approach to the pas de deux than Cox had. Although her entrance in the pas de deux seemed a just a little fussy she then kept the promise of her apt appearance in the first movement with a wonderfully knowing rendition, not that I have ever seen her appear to think. She seems to embody Balanchine's request to someone, "Don't think dear, just do." Kronenberg just does, and I just love how it all comes out. Right down to the ribbons in her hair, she makes nearly everything she does on stage seem like the reason the ballet was made, if more reason were needed.