NYCB in DC; thursday night

[Ari]

Thursday night: Concerto Barocco, Prodigal Son, Tchaik. Piano Concerto #2.

At the risk of forfeiting my credentials as a Balanchine fanatic, I have to say that Concerto Barocco has never been a favorite of mine. I don't see it as the quintessential Balanchine ballet, as many seem to; in fact, I think it misrepresents most of Balanchine's output. Almost everywhere else, Balanchine takes a piece of music and fits a ballet to it so perfectly that it seems to grow organically out of the music. But it's not mere music visualization (despite the criticisms of some detractors); he creates a new work of art that has a life beyond the music. In Barocco, I don't think that happens. It's music visualization -- beautifully done, to be sure, but nothing more. I have a theory about why this happened. This ballet was made in the 1940s, when there were a lot of Russian emigre musicians active in America. Many Russian musicians tend to emotionalize Bach, playing him as though he were a Romantic composer. I think Balanchine was fed up with this and made this work as a corrective, a way of saying, "This is how to look at Bach." But the effort made him too severe with the music. There's more to Bach than this.

That said, I thought this was a good performance, although it lacked a ballerina. Yvonne Borree isn't a bad dancer, but she's no ballerina. She looked like one of the ensemble who'd been pushed to the front. Both Pascale van Kipnis and Nikolaj Hubbe were more musical and had greater authority than her. Borree is tight in the chest and shoulders, and that makes her arms hang helplessly and robs her of considerable expressive power She also seems to have no imagination or any interest in creating a world of her own -- she's a dutiful time-server.

Prodigal Son came off very well. I'm normally not a Woetzel fan, but he was very good in this. His long bones, hollow cheeks and large, expressive eyes remind me of an etching or woodcut, or (more pertinently) a Russian icon. Kowroski's amazing legs were made for the Siren, but I think she's learning to take responsibility for her roles rather than relying on her physical ability. Still, her final gesture in the pas de deux, when she passes her hand behind her headpiece to signal triumph at seducing the Prodigal, came off flat. She didn't seem to understand what she was doing.

Tchaik. Piano Concerto suffered somewhat from mixed-up casting due to injuries. The two ballerinas should be contrasting types, but Miranda Weese and Ashley Bouder, while not a matched set, are too similar to be effective. It's like having an Aurora and a Lilac Fairy who could easily switch roles (and in fact I see Bouder as more of first ballerina in this ballet than the role she actually danced). Weese, while she danced well, seemed to be somewhere else for the first two movements, but woke up in the third. Charles Askegaard was meant to partner a Wendy Whelan type; he and Weese made an odd couple. The audience liked this ballet a lot.

Once again, I was surprised and impressed by the fact that all the ballets seemed actually to have been rehearsed. I don't meant to be bitchy, just realistic.

[Alexandra]

Thanks, Ari! I split this off into another thread, in case other people had yet to weigh in on the opening night.

A few brief notes:

I thought there were some lovely things in Concerto Barocco -- I thought parts were very musical. But, like "serenade" last night, I thought it was too careful; wasn't a sweep to it. I've seen Baroccos that were both spiritual and exciting. The corps didn't seem very strong -- physically strong -- and the dancing had no force to it, especially in the "bloody toes" section.

"Prodigal Son" seemed flat to me. I thought they were illustrating the story, going from picture to picture, rather than telling the story (which is something I often feel when watching a story ballet these days). I thought Kowroski could be very interesting as the Siren. Her body isn't standard to the role. There's a fragility about her, and she could be a spidery, predatory monster. I was grateful to see that the pas de deux wasn't done as a hoochy-goochy number, as it sometimes is elsewhere.

But Piano Concerto......I was caught up in it. I liked Weese a lot: beautiful turns, and then BAM, snap to an arabesque, and HOLD. After her first solo, she had the audience, and I always find it exciting when that happens. I agree with Ari that Weese and Bouder are too similar to be ideal, but if the casting was because of an injury, well, things happen.

I also agree that the ballets look rehearsed. Perhaps not coached and directed and whipped to a frenzy of artistic perfection, but they're not being sloppy!

[Dale]

Are the two soloists in Piano Concerto supposed to be different? I always took them to be "Queen" and "Princess, but Queen in Training." The original casting does not suggest that they should be that different - Marie-Jeanne/Gisella Caccialanza - as well as the first revival cast of Farrell and Patricial Neary. The second revival cast was a bit different in McBride/Colleen Neary. But I remember seeing Farrell-C Neary as well as Farrell-Nichols during Balanchine's lifetime. In recent times, there have been Nichols-Meunier, Weese-Somogyi, Whelen-Gifford.

[Alexandra]

I don't think they're supposed to be Giantess v. Shorty, but more like the contrast that's in Symphonie Concertante: violin and cello (except here, it would be cello/violin).

I do have a comment on one aspect of balletmastering. The dancers aren't being sized properly -- watching some moments of "Concerto Barocco" was like looking at a mouthful of crooked teeth. It doesn't help that the company body type -- which I hadn't seen so clearly until the Barocco costumes -- has become stringy: very thin, with visible muscles. Yet the dancers, at least in this ballet, are not as strong. My memory of Concerto Barocco (which I haven't seen NYCB do for at least 20 years, so that's my comparison) is a stage full of Ashley Bouders.

[kfw]

I loved van Kipnis' warmth and evident joy in Barocco, but how anyone could profess to cherish the Balanchine legacy and cast Borree in so important a ballet is one of life's great mysteries. Thank you for that description, Ari. I always try to like her, and then she comes out and bobbles a step in under 30 seconds. If she just looked like she was enjoying what she was doing I could half enjoy it with her, despite the stiff carriage. But she never does. I also thought the ballet lacked the original jazzines when it was called for.

Roualt's backdrops were about the most beautiful thing onstage all night, but I'm a little tired of Prodigal Son, and perhaps that colored my viewing. I remembered the goons as much weirder, Fayette's fake beard made the guy next to me in row Q laugh out loud, and Kowroski didn't seem commanding enough. I could understand the prodigal's attraction to her, but not why he'd let her dominate him. Woetzel, however, still impressive in his leaps, was a riveting actor.

I thought Weese was rather on the bland side -- bland is one word I'd use for the corps all night -- but I couldn't take my eyes off of Bouder, who had a couple of wobbles herself, but kept on plowin'. She had the authority and projected personality I missed in the central role.

Watching the rehearsals in the afternoon, I felt that excitement you mentioned yesterday, Alexandra. The actual performances paled, and paled next to what I often see from Suzanne Farrell's troupe. I kept thinking, "can this really be New York City Ballet, that I have to hunt for who to watch, that I sit here umoved?" I look forward to Saturday evening's performance with high hopes anyhow, but to Sunday afternoon's Jewels with some trepidation.

[Alexandra]

kfw, I think you've hit on what New York company regulars complain about. It's not that the company is BAD (although there are people who can tell you, step for step, what's missing in this or that ballet; that's a different issue). It's that it's not exciting, the edge one remembered from the goodolddays is gone. I sometimes think that this is a deliberate choice on Martin's part -- which he has a right to do, IMO: the works are smoother, the edge has been buffed off, rather than lost. Not Balanchine! you could say, and the answer to that would be, not Balanchine then, but that's the way we dance him now. BUT the sense of smoothness and calm (with some attendant beautifully detailed moments, and attention to musicality) isn't consistent, so it's not The Next New Thing, it's not quite this and not quite that.

It's that edge and sense of daner that the Farrell Ballet does have, and why, although she doesn't have first-rate dancers, her productions are admired.

I liked Hubbe very much in concerto barocco, but I don't remember ever coming away from that ballet remembering the man -- not that he overdid a thing, just that the others weren't up to him, and the corps just didn't have much juice.

kfw, I felt exactly as you did about Prodigal (except I wasn't wowed by Woetzel). We have seen that ballet over and over during the past decade, and I'd like a rest. I thought the San Francisco Ballet production was better all around -- in dancing, staging, and acting.

BUT I do think the evening built, and I did like Piano Concerto. I'm interested to see how second performances of both of these programs go.

Jewels, the first of three, tonight. We'll have a different take on the designs, having skipped the interim generation ones. "Our" "Jewels" is the original.

Other comments on this program? It was a full house, so there should be more of you out there!

[kfw]

Thanks for your comments, Alexandra. But I'm not sure I understand you -- the smoothness is positively Martins' intention? But as opposed to what? Because of course Balanchine was known for grooming musical dancers, and I've never thought of them as lacking lyricism as opposed to the current crop.

I forgot to mention that I was struck by the makeup indicating wounds and bruising on Woetzel's torso in the final scene last night. Have I always missed this, or is it a new practice?

I'm also puzzled by Sarah Kaufman's refrence to the dancers' "swoop in the spine." I think of especially flexible backs as a Kirov trademark, not something City Ballet is known. Is that something else I've missed observing all these years?

To be able to ask questions like this and get answers . . . what a dream this place is!

[Roma]

I think of especially flexible backs as a Kirov trademark, not something City Ballet is known. Is that something else I've missed observing all these years?

It's really interesting, but I was just watching the old recording of Concerto Barocco with Adams and LeClerq (love the dark costumes) and was incredibly struck by how much the upper bodies of the women reminded me of present day Kirov. When did that change?

Also, when watching POB's Serenade this winter, it was exactly the lack of "swoop" in the back that bothered me. The women looked like they were running around holding up ironing boards. Not too romantic.

[Alexandra]

kfw, what I meant was that it might be a matter of an active change -- the ballet master doing what suits his taste and eye -- rather than sloppiness, or loss of something (although it could certainly be interpreted as a loss, if you loved the other style).

I see a lot of Danishness in Martins' company. The small women, two flavors: merry or waiflike. Yes, Balanchine's dancers were exquisitely musical, but it was a different sense of musicality, and his phrases were punctuated, jazzy, punchy, the sense of being ahead of the music, always ready to MOVE. The Danish musicality is more melodic, harmonious in the sense of not breaking the flow; they have a wonderful sense of stillness even when they're moving. Stiff upper bodies doesn't ring a bell? Lovers of the French or Danish style would say, not stiff at all; the upper body should be erect, not flexible like a folk dancer. But the Russian and Russian-Americain upper body is, indeed, flexible like a folk dancer.

I think every director reproduces, consciously or subconsciously, the style and aesthetic in which he has grown up. Martins grew up in two styles (1960s Danish, not a high period, and 1970s Balanchine.) I'm copyrighting these remarks I'm going to write a piece about this either this week or next. (And this is obviously purely opinion. No claim to inside knowledge or trying to state that this is a fact. It's just what I see.)

[Paul Parish]

I think there should be a contrast between the 2 lballerinas in piano concerto -- or Ballet Imperial....

Mostly i'm basing htis on conversation I had with Marie Jeanne and Gisella Cacialanza (Mrs Lew Christensen) at the latter's house one day about 10 years ago...

They were VERY good friends, those two -- not that I knew htem well enough to say, , but MJ was visiting from Texas and staying at Gisella's, and they had me to Sunday lunch, and they l;ooked as comfortable together and as friendly as , say, the sisters from Pride and Prejudice, Jane and Elizabeth Bennet -- different, but mutually appreciative and delighting in each other.

The thing MJ kept saying was that Gisella was"the PERFECT Cecchetti dancer" -- and since she was talking mostly about her own role as being very jazzy, my feeling was that the difference between them was that she -- Marie Jeanne -- was very American-jazzy in feeling, kinda crazy, she just did these THINGS (which have now been codified into these double swqivels, but in her case were just wild squiggly jazz things) while thee were these perfect old-world forms that Gisella did --

From old tapes, I've seen that Gisella was a remarkably creamy dancer, VERY fluid -- she obviously had a remarkable Cecchetti jump, she could do double saut de basque, but she wasn't athletic, she was gloriously well co-ordinated and beautifully "placed" --

However much that's worth, since of course the ballet has changed a great deal over the years.....

GC and MJ were both pretty much the same size -- neither a very big person, though MJ had very long feet and on pointe therefore she had tremendously long line....