Emploi in Jewels

[liebs]

I was fortunate enought to see two different casts of the ballet. In one, Weese danced the Verdy role in Emeralds and in the other, she danced the McBride role in Rubies. I understand that Kowrowski has danced both the second lead in Rubies and now Diamonds. It is impossible to imagine any of the original ballerinas changing roles, so what does this mean?

Are cunrrent dancers more versatile than the original ballerinas? Has the concept of emploi been ignored in current casting? Were the original ballerinas so "sui generis" that no one will ever capture their unique qualities and the roles havenow become more similiar in the way that they are danced?

[Alexandra]

Good question! I think there's a difference between the general categories -- emploi -- and specific qualities of an individual dancer. I can't speak to whether the concept of emploi has been ignored in current casting, but I remember that leibling (who's danced a leading role in this ballet and knows the work as it's in her company's repertory) the first time she heard the concept of emploi, went through "Jewels" role by role and plunked those roles down into categories that sounded right to me. I hope she sees this thread.

[Manhattnik]

Let's not forget that when the Kirov last visited New York, Daria Pavlenko danced the Mimi Paul role in Emeralds and the Pat Neary one in Rubies on the same night (and did a fine job of each), and was even grander the next night in the Farrell role in Diamonds. I'm not sure what this says about emploi, other than that a truly extraordinary dancer can transcend its limitations.

[Ari]

I think the fact that you (and I) can't imagine any of the original cast members dancing another role in Jewels is more a tribute to Balanchine's uncanny way of personalizing the roles he made for his dancers than anything else. Offhand, I can't think of any Balanchine ballet involving multiple stars in which the original principals switched roles (unless it was male roles that were strictly partnering).

Also, I don't think that, for subsequent dancers, the ability to dance one role necessarily rules out suitability for another. Emploi is not -- or should not be -- a straitjacket. A dancer can have the Romanticism and womanliness for the Verdy role in Emeralds, for instance, as well as the Imperial line and strength for the Farrell role in Diamonds. Which brings up the fact that Jewels is not really a single ballet, but three distinct ones -- although I'm not sure that matters. There have been dancers who initially danced the second ballerina in Tchaik. Piano Concerto and then went on to do the lead, and those are two very different roles.

[leibling]

I wish I could remember what I said about emploi in Jewels... I'm sure the post is archived somewhere- thanks for remembering that, Alexandra! Mostly, I can't remember the names for the different categories of emploi, aside from "danseuse noble", "soubrette," and "demi-caractere." To me, it is interesting to see how dancers are cast, and I have noticed (in MCB) that dancers cast in the second ballerina role in Emeralds also go on to dance Diamonds. I also vaguely remember feeling that the rubies solo girl was part of the "black" line- (?). But here is a question- somewhere I have seen reference to the "Farrell" role in Emeralds- I think it was an essay written by Arlene Croce- was this the second ballerina role? If so, then there is an example of an original Jewels ballerina crossing over to another role.

[oberon]

I saw one of my favorite DIAMONDS divas, Wendy Whalen, dance the RUBIES pas de deux at the Joyce. I cannot recall if Weese has done DIAMONDS but I would think she would be very good in it, and she also excels at RUBIES.

[perky]

It certainly is one ballet that depends a great deal on it's correct casting.

Leibling, could you expand a little on your interesting post? I would quess that Rubies would be the soubrette part and Diamonds the dansuese noble part but what would Emeralds be?

[cargill]

I don't think emploi is a straighjacket either--certainly it wasn't in the 19th century. Aurora, for example, could certainly be danced by three different types of dancers, but is danced by one, who must be versatile. The same with Odette/Odile--lyrical and technical depending on the act. (Of course, later on there was a tradition of having Swan Lake danced by 2 different dancers, but that isn't the way it was intended.) And I certainly wouldn't have objected to seeing Verdy dance Diamonds!

[oberon]

Verdy in DIAMONDS...why didn't I think of that?

I think the "type-casting" boundries are being erased. I always enjoy seeing a dancer take on an unlikely role and see what she can do with it. I once saw Wendy in STARS & STRIPES. I was thinking of her CAGE, DIAMONDS, AGON and just couldn't picture her in Sousa. But she seemed to have a ball dancing it, and her very tongue-in-cheek approach gave the ballet a fresh slant.

[pville]

... interesting question. But I do believe that Farrell says in "walking on air" balanchine approached her before choregraphing jewels to ask her if she would rather be a diamond or a ruby.

[leibling]

Perky- I actually seem to remember that I thought the Rubies lead would be a demi-character role- I think this is particularly true for the male lead. Isn't Bluebird typically seen as "demi-caractere"? While the two pas de deuxs are worlds apart, the level of virtuosity required, as well as both pieces being for smaller dancers are parallel characteristics. I felt that Violette's role in Emeralds was the soubrette role. In some ways, the dancer helped to classify the role- somewhere in my readings I have run across references to Violette as a "soubrette" type, and Edward as "demi-caratere."

I wish I could remember all of the definitions we came up with for the categories of emploi.