Musagète

[Dansuer85]

I found the Ballet quite enthrawling. I was very impressed by all the dancing and thought that while some of the coreography was lacking, that over all it was a very moving peice.

[oberon]

Farrell Fan, of all the things written about MUSAGETE here to date, I feel you have hit the nail on the head. Anyone who didn't "know" the ''subtext' of the ballet would have seen an aged ballet master in a nursing home remembering in dreams/nightmares his life and work. I wonder if audiences other than the NYCB audience, not versed in Balanchine lore (the tendu pose, Mourka, Suzanne, etc.)

would view the work differently.

Judging from the enthusiasm, a good number of the opening night audience found something to like in the piece. I was doing some yelling myself, but it was for the dancers.

[Alexandra]

Audience reaction seems to have been different in each part of the house. Three people I spoke with said there was quite audible hissing in the first ring. Others, and several people here, have reported a rapturous reception in the 4th ring. Two others said they felt the reaction was lukewarm generally, with some sections of the house applauding wildly.

[Nanatchka]

-- i was good, and kept my mouth shut -- although when they began disrespecting kyra.....

You should have decked them. I will now tiptoe into the conflation of Mourka and Zorina. Both another name for cat and the Spanish "zorina" can be constured as slang allusions. Thus Balanchine is in a "cat house."

[jimmattimore]

Yes, Nina is a great Odile/Odette, and I'm happier now that I was when I read Dale's review.

Bye Bye Boris.

[lampwick]

This was my first Eifman experience and it wasn't as bad as I had expected, based on the prevailing view of his work. I found some things tasteless (and predictable)I was waiting for the tendu pose, and got it, what...one minute into the performance?

Eifman seems to be reluctant to say these characyers ARE Farrell, the cat Mourka, LeClerq, etc... Why then use such LITERAL images of events, like LeClerq's polio, and drag her offstage on a cloth? It didn't read symbolic at all. Eifman should take responsibility for the images he uses in his art.

Alexandra carried it off with a lot of aplomb. Her interpretation of the role was done with a great degree of sensitivity and taste.

The dancer's performances saved this work from its many difficult moments, or flaws, or whatever you call them.

Robert Tewsley was OUTSTANDING. He had to play Balanchine as a suffering artist/senile old man lost in recollection...and turned this into a riveting performance with some beautiful dancing. I loved him and thought he looked very much like Balanchine (as far as I could tell from the 4th ring)

I feel like Maria Kowroski can do more than penchee. Lately, I feel like they just pay her to penchee. Apart from a facial similarity, her dancing does not look like Farrell's at all. If anyone's dancing reminds me of Farrell's approach, it's Alexandra Ansanelli. She has the same fearless attack and slightly off-kilter look. They look nothing alike though. Despite this, I always enjoy Kowroski's dancing and Friday night was no exception. She looked like Maria Kowroski dancing like Maria Kowroski.

Wendy's adagio as Mourka was sensual (I think this is appropriate for a cat)...though I expected leaping. The photos of the cat were all leaps, so I didn't understand why it was adagio.

There was one lighting change near the end which really broke the little consistency that already existed in the choreography. The dancer's were all silhouetted on a bright stage. The scheme seemed to come from nowhere. There were a couple of nice things design-wise; the collapsing barre in the Kowroski section was nice, and served a functional/artistic purpose and the dancing pointe shoes at the beginning was funny, though it seemed a little more empty/clever.

At first I didn't like how Eifman seemed to be poking fun at Balanchine technique in the clasroom, though it seemed appropriate to poke fun at this, especially since many of his former dancers have written in thier biographies about his somewhat scattered company class. 40 minutes of tendu and so forth.

I wasn't bored by the ballet and there was some good dancing. I don't know how it would read on audience members who know nothing about balanchine. Probably like Farrell Fan and Oberon said

Anyone who didn't "know" the ''subtext' of the ballet would have seen an aged ballet master in a nursing home remembering in dreams/nightmares his life and work

If that floats your boat...

[Ann]

I've been reading these reviews with interest. I missed Eifmean's 'Red Giselle' when it was in London last year (?) and have always regretted it; from what I've read, Eifman's choreography has the tough muscularity and full-on drama that makes for the best of theatre (and ballet is, after all, theatre).

It does seem to me that on the whole the professional (i.e. newspaper) critics admired 'Musagete'; it was only on this site that one read the fiercely resistant stuff.

It makes me think that you Americans are far more conservative in your views of the arts than us British; you seem to distrust and dislike change. Feed you an unchanged diet of Balanchine and Ashton forever and you will be quite, quite happy; throw you a meaty bone of MacMillan, a richly sugared slice of Bejart, or now, (as it appears from my reading so far of the US newspapers) a spicy and though-provoking stew of Eifman, and you're thrown; it is unfamiliar, so you can't handle it.

I'm observing only - not criticising; I think this has much to do with the fact that Europe is a large network of individual countries whose different artistic efforts easily cross boundaries; the same obviously can't be said of the US.

Not that a country that can boast Paul Taylor and Mark Morris has anything to worry about....

[Alexandra]

Ann, all of the reviews are not in yet. The weekly/monthly writers have not yet spoken. Watch for future reviews.

Secondly, none of the negative criticism here or elsewhere is because the writers don't like drama, have somehow missed that Eifman thinks he's making drama, etc. The objections are to the poor quality of the choreography -- the way steps are put together, characterizations are drawn, etc. What anyone could find "thought-provoking" about Eifman escapes me. I find his work extremely simplistic and predictable.

Edited June 22, 2004 by Alexandra

[Dale]

Mmm, a person who didn't see the work that I'm criticizing, nor any other work by the choreographer in question, is calling me narrow minded. OK.

Well, I've been going to the ballet for close to 30 years, seeing not only the local companies, but the many that come through our fair city. I think I can trust my judgement, I don't need to rely on the newspapers to tell me what is good or bad. And there might be a ton of people who like Eifman's work (MacMillan for that matter), there are also a ton of people who like reality TV shows and the Backstreet Boys. I don't and I don't care if I'm the only one who doesn't. I'll give something a chance, but that doesn't mean I have to like it when I see it if I don't.

[Anthony_NYC]

Was the character wheeling Tewsley around supposed to be just a nurse, or was there some larger symbolism that I missed?

[Dale]

I don't want people to think that I completely dismiss Eifman, MacMillian etc.. I do believe in MacMillan as a choreographer (as well as Bejart) and while his genre really isn't for me, I have appreciated a decent amount of his work. And I certainly understand that he moves a great many people, as does Eifman. I had always respected that BE's works do strike a chord in a group of people. In his works I've seen at City Center, there were things that were striking. But I stand by what I've written about Musagete for the reasons I've all ready stated.

[Nanatchka]

It makes me think that you Americans are far more conservative in your views of the arts than us British.... throw you a meaty bone of MacMillan, a richly sugared slice of Bejart, or now, (as it appears from my reading so far of the US newspapers) a spicy and though-provoking stew of Eifman, and you're thrown; it is unfamiliar, so you can't handle it. 

I'm observing only - not criticising

I don't think we're really as provincial as all that, despite being your former colony. Bejart is not unfamiliar here, and indeed rather popular. Also MacMillan. (In fact, I have had occasion to feel wearily familiar with both.) They hardly occasion the shock of the new. As for the richly theatrical experience you espouse in culinary terms, I should think it depends on what you mean by rich, and what you mean by theater.

[Old Fashioned]

It does seem to me that on the whole the professional (i.e. newspaper) critics admired 'Musagete'; it was only on this site that one read the fiercely resistant stuff.

It makes no difference whether the viewer is a "professional" writer or not; it depends on how much they know about their subject to make a credible judgement, and I would be hard pressed to find a group of people like the ones here on this board who know about ballet as much as they do. Some of them also happen to be "professional critics," so I don't really understand the point you are trying to make. I've also come to realize a few big name critics don't have any idea of how to review dance or too biased towards certain companies/dancers/directors/etc. to make any reviews overly negative (and vice versa).

Now I'm going to go because I feel a bit nauseous from reading the reports on Musagete. :green:

[oberon]

Lampwick's review seems pretty fair...and yes, cats are very sensual!

Americans? Conservative? Oh, yeah...here in the land of the brave, home of the free I can't serve in the military or marry the person I love.

[Leigh Witchel]

[board host beanie on]

I think people made some excellent points, but it's getting acrimonious. Let's try and get back to the ballet itself, rather than how people are discussing the ballet - or each other and our respective nations.

[board host beanie off.]

[canbelto]

You know, I'm wondering (not to generalize) whether NYCB audiences naturally tend to be conservative. I'm not talking politically (most dance fans I've met veer decidedly towards the left, but I'm sure dance and politics are not connected in any way). But NYCB fans, it seems, often are very protective of Balanchine's legacy and Balanchine's ideals. And although I have no idea what Balanchine's political leanings were (other than he pressured Suzanne Farrell to vote for Hubert Humphrey) his dances do seem extremely "conservative." We all know "ballet is woman" but more than that, his choreographic style is very refined, with no raw emoting. His female muses seem just that -- unattainable ideals of womanhood, and the relationship between the man and the woman in his ballets always seems a little aloof, even chivalrous. It's not surprising to me that Mr. B's Nutcracker is by far the most family-friendly version -- again, it seems to conjure up an absolute ideal of warm fires, happy families, dreamy little girls, and lots of candy.

I saw the Eifman ballet, and thought it entertaining, if vulgar. I also saw Shambards, and that I really enjoyed. But these ballets are definitely not ballets which idealize feminine beauty and mystique the way Balanchine's ballets did.

I'm an opera fan and I see this in opera too: Wagner fans I've found often to be very conservative. The stories, with their stark black/white, good/evil, redemption/suffering motifs, seem to appeal to them. I love Wagner myself but the stern morality of his operas is what bothers me the most.

[Mme. Hermine]

i'm sure i won't say this quite right, but here goes: regardless of what he was like or what his ballets were like and what this might or might not mean about his audience, if a ballet is about him and for them, what then is the point of making it so unlike him and his ballets? :shrug:

[oberon]

Yes, I agree that NYCB audiences are quite conservative and in fact I pretty much agree with everything canbelto says, and I too LOVE Wagner!! (Ever seen Paul Taylor's ROSES, set to the SIEGFRIED IDYLL?)

At NYCB, ballet is woman...the passions are refined, suffering becomes spiritual...and I just love it. I do wonder if someone were to make a ballet in which two men (or two women) were to be portrayed as lovers, how would NYCB audiences react? I remember ABT doing MacMillan's TRIAD which showed two men in a loving domestic relationship only to have Amanda McKerrow swoop in and carry one of them off to hetero-land, leaving the other man bereft.

[Nanatchka]

I think there's a dichotomy going on here between form and content. Once you start discussing the relationships in Balanchine's ballets, you are in essence looking for mothers-in-law, whom you will not find. Perhaps his content can be viewed as conservative, though I think sublimated is more like it myself. His form, however, is anything but conservative. I don't see why "raw emoting" is liberal, or modern. Essentially the divide in this conversation seems to be between story/not story, or between narrative/metaphor. There's nothing essentially conservative or liberal about any of these, is there? What Balancine can not be--the only thing I think he cannot be--is contemporary.

[Alexandra]

Was the character wheeling Tewsley around supposed to be just a nurse, or was there some larger symbolism that I missed?

Anthony's question got lost in the shuffle - can anyone answer it? And who was Stephen Hanna supposed to be? Some of the "characters" were quite clear, apparently, and others not. Did Lincoln Kirstein make an appearance? Stravinsky?

[canbelto]

Nanatchka, as I said, this has nothing to do with political leanings. I simply think that Balanchine ballets, which are refined, aloof, even mystical celebrations of feminine beauty and grace, tends to produce an audience that does not like to be "shocked". Raw emoting in itself is not "liberal" but I do think "liberal" peope *in the arts* tend to be more accepting or open to "new" music, maybe unorthodox styles. This was found in many forms -- for instance, the Nazis repeatedly banned conductors who insisted on performing "degenerate" music: music that was atonal, or where the composer was non-Aryan. In the 1920s, the "hipper" younger crowd loved jazz, while the older crowd frowned. Same thing with rock'n'roll in the 1950s. In figure skating boards, it's an acknowledged fact that some skaters (like Gordeeva and Grinkov, with their fairytale romance and very classical, female-oriented skating style) tend to attract fans that are more conservative.

I am not, repeat, NOT, saying NYCB fans are old-fashioned or narrowminded personally. As I said, 99% of the dance fans I've met seem decidedly politically liberal. But just the Balanchine aesthetic is naturally one of refinement, elegance, chivalry, and perhaps rigid male/female roles. He once said the man's duty is to present the woman. Thus, scenes of female dancers straddling "Mr. B" or Jock Soto tugging on a prone Miranda Weese's arm really dont fit into the Balanchine aesthetic. I mean, I wonder if, say, the Joffrey ballet came to town and danced Wheeldon's Shambards, whether anyone would raise eyebrows. But eyebrows are raised when the NYCB dancers do it.

Of course, this raises ???'s about the NYCBs future: I mean, if theyre to be known as an innovative company, there are going to be works which dont adhere to the Balanchine style. if they are to really "respect" Mr. B and hire only "tame" choreographers then they risk becoming either a museum or the new works will be derided as poor-man's Balanchine. If they start to dance more classical full-length ballets like Giselle or La Bayadere then where does that leave dancers like Wendy Whelan who may not be good fits for those types of ballets?

[Leigh Witchel]

A lot of NYCB fans (here at least) tend to be formalists and fans of either classicism or neo-classicism. (I'm not sure "conservative", with it's acquired meanings, helps clarify the argument) I love formal structures, and dislike sprawl. It's a lot easier for me to tolerate a mediocre formalist work than a mediocre expressionist (for lack of a better term) work; at least I can see the craft. My problem with Eifman has never been that it was new or that it was different. I'll go to see Pina Bausch no matter how much it runs against my aesthetic. The same with Forsythe's best works. My problem with Eifman is that what I have seen hasn't even hit mediocre. He doesn't know how to use his theatricality even; it's indiscriminate and worse than that, usually third-hand.

Canbelto, isn't there a possibility that the company can be innovative within the aesthetic that it promulgated? Why does innovation have to be a destructive rather than an additive process? When Forsythe did a piece for Paris Opera called pas/.parts it gave them a work that didn't subvert their aesthetic while still opening new avenues for them. The same thing with Behind the China Dogs for NYCB. Does the temple always have to be destroyed when perhaps all you wish to do is add a fresh coat of paint?

[Farrell Fan]

Just as in his ballet Eifman tried to make Balanchine fit the stereotype of tortured artist, it's equally wrong to make him out to be a paragon of conservative refinement. Just during this season, NYCB had in its repertory Kammermusik No. 2, Episodes, Variations pour un Porte et un Soupir, Ivesiana, and Symphony in Three Movements. These ballets can't be neatly categorized, nor in fact can The Four Temperaments, Apollo, Orpheus, Agon. They still have the power to shock and surprise in ways undreamed of in Eifman's choreography.

[Helene]

Raw emoting in itself is not "liberal" but I do think "liberal" peope *in the arts* tend to be more accepting or open to "new" music, maybe unorthodox styles.

The seeds of the NYCB audience began with Ballet Society, in which members subscribed to an unannounced list of performances and shows -- ballet, art, music. That audience embraced The Four Temperaments, which was as new, modern, contemporary as they come, written to a commissioned score by a living composer. A conservative businessman and City Center board member, Morton Baum, invited Ballet Society to become the residence dance company of the organization, after he saw Orpheus and was blown away by it, not by Symphony in C, which also appeared on the opening program.

Balanchine choreographed to music by Hindemith, Stravinsky, Webern, Ravel, Henry, and other contemporary composers. Many of these ballets -- Four Temperaments, Agon, Apollo, Stravinsky Violin Concerto, Symphony in Three Movements, Episodes, Rubies -- not only appear on the top 10 "greats" lists of critics, but also on the "desert island" lists of NYCB fans, with Movements for Orchestra, Monumentum pro Gesualdo, Tombeau de Couperin, La Valse considered in the next echelon.

For truisms about ballet audiences, the Metropolitan Opera's audience that didn't embrace Balanchine's early ideas, like the danced Orpheo ed Euridyce with the singers on the side. The ABT audience tended to take to old and new modern classics with a storyline (Tudor, deMille, etc.), and that divide exists today as well.

In the 1920s, the "hipper" younger crowd loved jazz, while the older crowd frowned. Same thing with rock'n'roll in the 1950s.

Balanchine's style was hardly orthodox in his time: he emphasized off-center, jutted hips, and jazz, which appear in all of his leotard ballets, not just Who Cares?.

In figure skating boards, it's an acknowledged fact that some skaters (like Gordeeva and Grinkov, with their fairytale romance and very classical, female-oriented skating style) tend to attract fans that are more conservative.

In my experience on the boards, most of the people who choose Gordeeva and Grinkov as their favorites choose Mishkutienok and Dmitriev, a rather unorthodox, non-classical pair, as their co-favorites or a close second. (The "fairy tale" seems to be more about their lives than their skating -- aided and abetted by US TV commentators -- given the vitriol on the boards when she remarried.) The great pairs divide seems to be between the classical style of Berezhnaia/Sikuharlidze and the showy style of Sale/Pelletier, and that was several years before the dual golds in Salt Lake City.

But just the Balanchine aesthetic is naturally one of refinement, elegance, chivalry, and perhaps rigid male/female roles.

In some of his ballets, but rarely in the leotard ballets -- the exceptions being the second Aria in Stravinsky Violin Concerto and the pas de deux in Concerto Barocco.

My experience as a member of NYCB ballet audience -- now alas, as a long-distance member -- is that many of us were there for years as new work after new work was unveiled. Not every work by Balanchine was hailed as a masterwork. With Balanchine's last illness was lost was the experience of wonder when a new work of genius is unveiled, and if a new choreographer comes along to do the same with works of top quality and, maybe genius, I can't see the audience rejecting his/her work because it's new.

But "new" doesn't make the work any more important or good, and new is always compared to the old, for better or worse. Once you've tasted a steak in Sydney, McDonald's will always be McDonalds: good for an occasional pig-fest, but a Big Mac none the same.

[Alexandra]

I don't think that the divide is always as simple as form/content, dramatic/abstract, either, as the NYCB fans in the '50s and '60s were also big Royal Ballet fans, of that company's productions of the classics as well as Ashton's very different brand of neoclassicism (which also included some dramatic works). And Balanchine made story ballets.

There are lots of divides -- choreography fans versus star lovers (not saying that the former don't appreciate dancers, nor the latter choreography).

I think canbelto's point about what is tolerated is a good one -- if another company danced "Shambards" would eyebrows be raised? Probably not -- but that's part of the point. When fans close ranks around a company and say -- no, not this -- it's because they don't want their company to look like every other company. There was a revolt (by Robbins and DeMille) at ABT when Lucia Chase brought in Swan Lake; it failed, but they fought hard. When Stuttgart brought in Glen Tetley and switched, overnight, from Cranko to Tetley, the audience screamed (and Tetley left very quickly). If NYCB suddenly announced it was programming a season of Merry Widow, Manon and Dracula, the subscribers probably would notice. At another company, these might well be welcome. This is why there are moving vans