SandyMcKean

I'll see Imler this time around, on Thursday evening.

I saw her last Saturday.......a sight to behold. I'll admit I am prejudice, but Carrie is more perfectly matched to, and best creates the mystic of, Aurora more than anyone else at PNB. Exquiste is the word that comes to mind. I envy your Thursday.

His direction is free of gimmicks and conceptual innovations......

I did catch one sort of gimmick (IMHO). Those around me didn't see it, but I'm pretty sure I did.

This production was set in Spain in the 1930s during the time of the Spanish Civil War (as you mentioned). That war was essentially a populist uprising against the fascist Franco regime. In that society Franco would have represented the ultimate authority of the state. I thought I saw the figure of Franco himself enter in during the procession of the bullfighters. He was dressed in a dark suit, looked like Franco, was about the right age, and was wearing sunglasses as Franco often did.

If I'm right about that......I think this was a bit of a gimmick, albeit a humorous and clever one, and one I liked.

I feel the same as Helene and Sandi, I far preferred the old PNB format. I have even talked to the website folks at PNB, and they admit to the problem, and even promised to restore the old format (in addition to the new one I assume), but of course nothing has been done.

The issue I think revolves around whether you get tickets based on date or cast. For those who pick their date first and cast is secondary (likely most folks -- including those who go just once per program), the new format works well (altho not that much better than the old format). But for folks like me who pick cast first and date second (especially for those of us that regularly go to multiple performances of every program), the new format is terrible (but better than nothing as you say bart).

The solution I think is to provide both formats. PNB can leave the new format alone on the "buy tickets" webpage, but they should re-implement the old grid format somewhere on the website (doesn't have to be on the "buy tickets" page) so that aficionados can see all the casts side by side.

[Later edit......not that anyone cares, but I see now that my memory of how the PNB website works was not correct. The casting is not shown on the "buy tickets" page, but on a completely separate page that one must request. So anyone looking for the cast, whether they be a date or a cast person, has to go to this special cast page. Given that structure, perhaps the new drop down list mechanism should be replaced by the old grid display, or somehow include both, or give users a choice.]

I'd like to join the Julianne Moore fan club expressed in this thread......as Patrick says, I've never seen anything she does that I didn't love. "Hours" is one of my all time favorite films...in no small part because of Moore's performance. Other performances of hers that stick out in my mind are: the film "Far from Heaven", and the short "sort of play" on film by Samuel Beckett where essentially just a mouth talks and talks fast and talks stream of conciousness (I forget the name of the play.....but it will stop you short in your tracks if you see it).

Charlie Rose interviewed Wiseman about this film yesterday (1/28/10). You can view the interview online by going to the following link and clicking on Wiseman's picture:

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10838

I, OTOH, was left a bit underwhelmed by Teddy Tahu Rhodes's voice. It felt "hollow" to me. Second, I thought Wheeldon's opening dance for Act I fabulous.....it felt integral to the production to me.

I saw the last performance last night (Sunday). All I can say is WOW.

Everything was terrific, but I thought 3 Seasons was remarkable. Wevers used the music in absolutely amazing ways. The quality of the dancing by these highest possible calibre dancers was extraordinary. Their sense of ensemble could be cut with a knife. The standing ovation was instant and left NO ONE in their seat. In particular, I thought Wevers did a masterful job of understanding his dancers strengths and choreographing to those strengths. All dances are a reflection of the original cast to some extent, but in this production, I think this aspect is particularly evident.

When the final curtain set, all I could think of was......."we've just seen the birth of something important".

Oh, and BTW, the lighting was superb. I don't think I have ever seen such dramatic and appropriate lighting in such a small venue (400 seats?) before. Congrats to Michael Mazzola.

For me it's: AGON.

I think it is Agon's highly distilled quality of ballet that I find so endlessly fascinating. To use a metaphor: most good booze is distilled (purified via a process of removing all but the essence) to something like 40-45% (80 to 90 proof). Agon is like 95% pure. I can drink 190 proof booze all night long!

larger scale Balanchine festival of some sort in NYC- invite the full troupes that perform it best into the city for a great 2 weeks of dancing in January. Miami, PNB, NYCB, Suzanne Farrell Ballet, Dutch National, etc.

What a great thing that would be. I suppose it could represent a big financial risk -- of course, it could also earn companies money if it were successful enough, but which ADs would be willing to take the risk? It would also need a single company to sort of honcho the event and preparations (someone has to make the decisions)......NYCB is the natural candidate, but could the Balanchine Trust take on that coordinating role and perhaps even the financial risk by underwriting the event such that each company were guaranteed to at least break even? Balanchine himself took on risk with his Stravinsky Festival.....I believe that worked financially, so in many ways the Trust would be true to his ideals if they took on something like this.

Interesting.

Act II is my favorite act, and I wouldn't cut a millisecond from it.

True for Seattle.....thank Allah.

My wife and I saw the HD performance last Saturday in Seattle. I loved it (but then I'm easy ).

Rosenkavalier has always been one of my favorites because the trio + duet at the end of Act III was introduced to me in high school as one of my first experiences with classical music (and certainly my first ever opera). I got totally hooked on it, and have played it a bzillion times over the course of my life (it is the most beautiful 10 minutes of opera for me). The opera has so many associations for me -- most strongly my ever so great friend Jim McClure who was that high school friend, and so musical (a singer), who did that introduction (alas Jim died of AIDS many years ago before much was available in the way of drugs).

I really enjoyed Sigmundsson as Ochs. I kinda like Baron Ochs. Sure, he is a boor and disgusting, but there is something lovable about him too (even tho he is a sleaze bag). That's exactly how Sigmundsson played him I thought. Not as a buffoon like I have seen before, and not as someone impossible to sympathize with, but as silly, cute, "little" man who is not aware of anything beyond his own selfish desires (much like a small child). Sigmundsson may have given us a clue to why he plays it this way during his interview. He said "there is a little Ochs in all of us". I thought "How True". Ochs is trapped in his world view that a 18th century nobleman is above the law, and has a God given right to do whatever (2001 through 2008, anyone?? ). He's just dumb enough to believe it.

I can understand feeling that one can't wait for him to get off the stage (bart), and I feel that way too in half my brain, but the other half of me gets a big kick out of Ochs. (Besides the opera would have no focus if it weren't for Ochs.) I also like the way he stays true to his "values" to the very end.....he even stomps off the stage in indignation when he is totally exposed. You've got to admire that. This is what I loved about Sigmundsson's performance, he actually allowed me to care just enough about Ochs to see him as a 3 dimensional character.

Of course, Fleming and Graham were superb (assuming I can tell the difference....which is a big IF).

One thing that struck me is: what is Strauss's point in Ochs? Domingo said that Strauss almost called the opera "Baron Ochs"; so clearly Strauss didn't consider him a dismissable character. Obviously, such a tale is a condemnation of the arrogance of the aristocracy. That makes total sense in Mozart's time with the "Marriage of Figuro", but why in the 20th century is Strauss interested in so starkly making the same point? It occurred to me that perhaps Strauss saw 20th century industrialists (or some such group) much like Mozart saw the aristocracy. (Think Bernard Shaw and The Ring).

Once again....I just love this opera.

P.S. What a strange cadence Domingo has when he speaks........

Has anyone reading this thread, who lives in or near NYC, seen PNB in Seattle at our opera house (McCaw Hall) in the last 3 years? What was your reaction (therefore taking Joyce Theater and this particular program out of the equation)? It would be particularly interesting if someone, who normally sees several companies in NYC (certainly the NYC based companies), has seen PNB in Seattle during the last 3 years, and saw the performance at Joyce recently.

Who was that musician who famously said that the music doesn't happen with the notes, but with the space between the notes?

Miles Davis, I believe.

Maybe Jonathan Pueretta is a star, his movements are marvelous, although I didn't care for that piece either, 'Mopey'.

He is. I wish he had better material than "Mopey".

I agree with Helene. Mopey shows Jonathan (it's Poretta BTW) well in some aspects of his dance, but there is so much more that you don't see about him in this piece. If you ever see him in, say, "Rubies", you would get a far better idea of who he is as a dancer.

That's why I keep harping on my disappointment in PNB having brought this Tharp. If both casts of "Afternoon Ball" had come, you would have seen a completely different Chalnessa Eames.

As I indicated earlier, both Helene and I preferred "Afternoon" to "Opus 111" when they premiered here in Seattle. Opus 111 is fine, but the power or excitment, many of you NYC'ers seem to feel was missing, might have been satisfied with "Afternoon" I think (or alternatively, you might not have liked "Afternoon" at all since it is definitely not for everyone's taste).

The company has a glassy bright sheen, and I'd much rather have seen them do Balanchine.

I have little doubt that all of us in Seattle would prefer that the program contained a Balanchine. Balanchine would have been a sort of "standard" that you all could have used to see PNB in light of other companies you see on a more regular basis. Not only that, but IMHO one of the strengths of PNB is fully realized when you see a program that moves from something like "Square Dance" to "Opus 111" and then maybe even on to something like Robbins "The Concert". I presume Boal picked the pieces he did for many reasons (the Joyce Theater being only one of them).

To my NYC "friends". Naturally all the dancers scheduled to perform are worthy of your attention, but allow me to point out a few that I think you will enjoy focusing on (not because one is "better" than the others, but for very particular reasons I will mention):

Carla Korbes -- goes without saying why those of you in NYC will focus on her

Carrie Imler -- for my money Carrie is the best all around dancer at PNB; she can do anything, and has a professional quality (in the sense of complete commitment to quality) that one can't help but admire; technically she is 2nd to none; her acting is superb in a subtle sort of way

Lindsi Dec -- a rising star (incidentally recently married to Karel Cruz)

Laura Gilbreath -- what she does with "tall" is amazing

Lucien Postlewaite -- no male dancer at PNB has more artisty in his dance than Lucien

Barry Kerollis -- IMO a young dancer destined for star status; his grace and power practically define masculinity in dance

I could go on and on of course, and I don't mean to slight any of the other fabulous dancers (great dancers even) in the PNB group at NYC, but I think these dancers above each have something unique to watch for.

I love this place.

I guess we all do

They ran off and wasted their talents and are now returning home broken, begging for forgiveness and menial employment just to survive?

Indeed! Seattle, as is well known, is a hot bed of hedonism. I'm sure the company is finding it nice to kick back in NYC for a little R&R after the intensity of life in the Pacific Northwest!

Korbes is going to be very busy.

I've read the phrase "Prodigal Son Returns" at least once in relation to Peter Boal taking PNB to NYC. It's also a bit of "Prodigal Daughter" too

This list doesn't tell which dancers are dancing which nights, but it does at least list all the dancers that will perform each piece:

http://seattledances.blogspot.com/2010/01/...ur-casting.html

P.S. Seattle Dances is an excellent website here in Seattle for finding information and reviews of nearly everything dance in the Northwest. It is run by Rosie Gaynor.

P.P.S. ......and do yourself a favor and see the video interview with Barry Kerollis at the end of the posting. Barry is one of PNB's bright upcoming stars (IMHO). He has a grace and power and commitment that stands out.

......and getting an original Tharp was a coup. (I preferred her "Afternoon Ball", another commission, but that's me.)

That's how I feel about the 2 pieces too.

Sounds like Wevers is being purposefully whimsical (after all his new company's name is Whim W'him which I'm told sprouts from a sense of humor and whimsy). Obviously the word Whim is actually there, but also the contraction W'him which I believe is a spoof: meaning "with him" (him being Wevers). So the company is "being whimsical with Wevers" At least so I understand.

For those who don't frequent Seattle Opera, it may be difficult to imagine just what a huge presence Perry was to this community. There is but one Perry Lorenzo.....he is irreplaceable. My wife and I are profoundly affected by this loss.

Perry had a way of making presentations that were not only superbly entertaining, but also, and more importantly, presentations that gave you insight not only into the operas themselves, but also into how that opera, or that composer, fit into the larger picture of the time including: politics, other arts, personal foibles, literature, history, sexual peccadillos, and more often than not into the roots of Greek drama or perhaps the Catholic church -- basically you name it, Perry demonstrated convincingly how it was related. I go to lots of lectures on all sorts of subjects, and no one, and I mean no one, has ever had me see such insight into a work of art as did Perry. Like many, I suspect, I feel what little I know about opera, I owe to Perry.

He will be missed more than any of us can possibly say.

"God, what a data-dependent, empirically-obsessed Philistine I am!"

Ain't it grand to be able to laugh at oneself???

So, I guess we also learn about ourselves while experience highly personal works of art like this.

Brilliant observation. Perhaps therein lies the real power of art.

P.S. Did anyone pick up on the following bit of off-the-cuff bitchiness? "The flaws of Suzanne Farrell became qualities for others."

I heard it like a fire engine siren....loud and clear. Problem is that I didn't understand it. Can someone explain this comment to me?

I was torn: fascinated by almost everything on the screen but also frustrated by what seemed to me to a lack of clear development and an unwillingness to help the audience focus on the various stands that were, in fact, developing.

I confess, also, to becoming annoyed by the recurring shots of empty hallways and staircases. And at one point towards the end I thought: if there's one more quick cut to a long shot of Paris in the early morning ("NEXT DAY!" I GET IT!), I'll scream.

I am always fascinated by how differently we "in depth" fans can react to things.

Strangely bart, one of the things I liked the most about the film was how it didn't attempt to explain anything (altho I would be in favor of some subtitles with just the names of ballets, choreographers, and dancers). I even loved the shots of the empty halls etc. These techniques gave me the feeling of being there wandering about on my own....as if I had simply been lucky enough to have wandered into the bldg and the powers-that-be allowing me to simply go where ever I wanted to see whatever I wanted......the proverbial "fly on the wall".

Yeah, perhaps too many "Paris in the early morning" shots, but if push came to shove, I wouldn't take a single one of those out if I had the chance to edit. Somehow, I liked the "back to home base" quality of that ever repeating image.

I think that Halvorsen's direction on this one was spot on, and focused the eye properly on the action.

Somewhat

One thing that occurred to me at my last MET HD viewing (Turnadot) was a requirement I suddenly realized must exist, and that the director likely must deal with: the directionality of the voices.

Clearly we'd all shutter at the thought of opera being performed in an opera house with the singers miked. One of the primary reasons for that (at least for me) would be that the direction of the voice would be disembodied from the singer. The singer might move across the stage, but his/her voice wouldn't move, or wouldn't move much. It occurred to me that as a MET HD director I'd have to somehow insure that I didn't disembody the voice in this way. I can't think of any other way to do that except to do lots of close-ups and to follow the singer around the stage so that both the sound and the image stay more or less centered, and certainly together.

It use to be that I complained that Met HD directors moved the camera too much. "Just pull back the camera and leave it that way" I used to whisper to myself. After this revelation at Turnadot, I now appreciate that the visual peresentation of an HD opera must by necessity be different than the one sees in the opera house given this technological problem.

Just speculation of course, but it makes sense to me.