carbro Posted June 8, 2005 Posted June 8, 2005 A young woman having trouble choosing between two men. Which casts are you choosing?
nysusan Posted June 9, 2005 Posted June 9, 2005 A young woman having trouble choosing between two men. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Please, Carbro, don't encourage Mr. McKenzie!!! The idea of a member of medieval French royalty "choosing" between a French Knight and an Saracen Knight during the crusades is still a little hard for me to digest. But the fairy tale color combinations ABT used for the costumes & scenery placed the action firmly in the land of make believe, so I guess clinging to any shred of historical plausibility is silly. Which casts are you choosing? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Despite it's flaws, I'm still a sucker for this ballet. I chose the Part/Gomes/Solymosi cast. Part was luminous, she was a Raymonda to the manner born. She had some lovely moments, and I liked the way her character changed from the opening scenes, to the dream scenes and then the wedding scenes. She was really able to convey a difference between her public behavior in the early court scenes, her freer,more erotically charged personality while she was dreaming, and the mature,regal Raymonda we saw at the end. Her Grand Pas was worth the price of admission (silent claps at the start but then an audible one in the middle). However while her demeanor was enchanting, and her epaulment was gorgeous,I don't think anyone went home raving about her technique - and there were some partnering problems. Gomes is a pretty big guy, but they still had trouble on some of the overhead lifts. I'm thinking of the ones in the first act, when he lifts her up above his shoulders and it looks like she's behind him with her knee braced on his shoulder. Let's just say they were a little rough. Ditto when she is held aloft by 2 men and then Gomes joins them and the 2 men leave & he's holding her by himself. On the other hand, towards the end of the ballet they did a lift that ended in a fish dive that was wonderfully done & very exciting. Aside from the partnering problems, Gomes turned in his beautifully nuanced performance - well danced & well acted. I thought Solymosi was adequate. No way is he in the same league with ABT's best male dancers, but he was ok, and they really need to find some big, tall men. He didn't really appear to be much, if any bigger than Gomes, but Part seemed more comfortable with him. Maybe it was just because the nature of her dancing with him was less controlled than it was with Gomes (recoiling in horror, and all). Maybe ABT should try to get Evgeny Ivanchenko. Can we put together a recruiting committee to go up to Washington when the Kirov's in town and tell him what a wonderful town NY is? Abrera, Liceica, Tidwell & Hallberg were the friends. Abrera looked a little stiff to me in this role, but that's just nit picking. I really like Licecia, and, of course, watching Tidwell & Hallberg was heavenly. I thought the Saracen & Spanish dances looked a little raggedy, but I loved Sasha Dmochowski in the Czardas.
carbro Posted June 9, 2005 Author Posted June 9, 2005 Thank you, Susan, for writing my review for me! The sight of Marcelo and his friends, Danny and David, dancing together in Act I made me as happy as a pig in mud. Was that a sight or what??? Three utterly refined, masculine classicists. Ahhhhh! I probably shouldn't allow myself to be so easily seduced, but Veronika's musicality and lyricism, the heart on her sleeve, distract me from all but the most glaring technical weak spots. I did notice the trouble in those lifts. I think the problem is that they are done with bent elbows, which increases the stress on the guy and makes balance a greater factor than if arms were fully extended. I was also delighted to see Monique's Lady in White. She made the uber-dolman sleeves a part of the dance, so that she seemed to float like milkweed. A benevolent, supernatural milkweed. I'm sad that I won't get a second chance with this cast this season.
Helene Posted June 9, 2005 Posted June 9, 2005 The idea of a member of medieval French royalty "choosing" between a French Knight and an Saracen Knight during the crusades is still a little hard for me to digest. Marriage to the Saracen would have been a strategic alliance between the Tsar of Hungary (Raymonda's uncle) and the Islamic east. Hungary was located at the crossroads of various competing empires. By the time Petipa set the story, the Saracen would have been considered and portrayed as the heathen compared to the civilized, Christian Jean de Brienne. (Dressed all in white in the Bolshoi production that toured to Berkeley.) He's set up as the straw man in this drama.
bart Posted June 9, 2005 Posted June 9, 2005 A quick check of genealogical tables for royal and noble families of the period came up with no acknowledged "marriages" to non-Christians in this period. (Kidnappings and disappearance into harems is another thing.) Such a policy would be almost impossible to imagine. Marriages between members of the Roman Church (including Hungary) and the Eastern Church -- that is, within two distinct and opposed branches of Christianity -- did take place at the highest levels. But they were rare and never without controversy.
Helene Posted June 9, 2005 Posted June 9, 2005 I'm not sure Raymonda was supposed to be any more historically accurate than Madama Butterfly or Abduction from the Seraglio, for example, in the conflict of archetypes, both philosophical -- East vs. West, Christianity vs. The Other -- and dramatic. After all, the dangerous, sexy stranger -- in ballet terms, the flashy guy with the big jumps and excuse for the exotic divertissement -- is still a stock character in plays and movies.
bart Posted June 9, 2005 Posted June 9, 2005 I Lombardi and Aida fill the bill as well. Petipa might have been, like Verdi, one of those 19th century Europeans who were fascinated by the "East" -- not exclusively the Muslim East -- at a time of Russian, as well as general European imperialist expansion into those areas. Fascination with the exotic, fear of the Other, daring and always ill-fated attempts to bridge the gap. "Orientalism" is a label that has been applied, by Edward Said and others, to this cultural phenomenon. Ridley Scott, in his new film Kingdom of Heaven (about the Crusader states in Palestine), may be trying to explore (and possibly exploit) the same clash-of-cultures mindset today.
carbro Posted June 10, 2005 Author Posted June 10, 2005 By the time Petipa set the story, the Saracen would have been considered and portrayed as the heathen compared to the civilized, Christian Jean de Brienne. (Dressed all in white in the Bolshoi production that toured to Berkeley.) He's set up as the straw man in this drama. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ABT's Jean would be in all-white, too, except for all the silver on some of his tunics. Now that I think of it, . . . There's the passage where Abdurakhman tempts Raymonda with jewels. The implication that the morally preferable Jean is less concerned with glitzy materialism is somewhat compromised by all his bling-bling in this version. Then again, originally the work made as entertainment for the glitzily materialistic Imperials (I saw the "Jewels of the Romanovs" exhibition ), so . . . . I'm so confused! I'm giving myself a headache.
nysusan Posted June 10, 2005 Posted June 10, 2005 Many thanks to Helene & Bart for the historical context. The idea of a member of medieval French royalty "choosing" between a French Knight and an Saracen Knight during the crusades is still a little hard for me to digest.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Marriage to the Saracen would have been a strategic alliance between the Tsar of Hungary (Raymonda's uncle) and the Islamic east. Hungary was located at the crossroads of various competing empires.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Interesting info, somehow it makes me feel better to think that McKenzie - Holmes might have been following some semi logical line of reasoning. Though you're right to point out that Raymonda wasn't supposed to be historically accurate. I was just hoping for some consistency - in the midst of a conflict of philosophies (and the actual conflct of the crusades) you don't generally entertain the notion of marrying the enemy...By the time Petipa set the story, the Saracen would have been considered and portrayed as the heathen compared to the civilized, Christian Jean de Brienne. (Dressed all in white in the Bolshoi production that toured to Berkeley.) He's set up as the straw man in this drama.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> A quick check of genealogical tables for royal and noble families of the period came up with no acknowledged "marriages" to non-Christians in this period. (Kidnappings and disappearance into harems is another thing.) Such a policy would be almost impossible to imagine.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> I was thinking more along these lines - thinking of the Saracen as a heathen who could never be taken seriously as a suitor. Sexy & dangerous, yes - but not marriage material for Christian royalty. Throw in the possibility of kidnapping and it really makes Raymonda’s dream/nightmare ring true.Back to the performance - If it sounded like I was less than enthralled with Veronika then let me set the record straight - I was most definitely held spellbound by her performance. I’ll take magic over technique any day. It just makes me sad that we’re forced to make that choice these days at ABT. I love ABT and I love Raymonda but, based on the production and the casting I decided to limit myself to just one performance this season. I have to admit that as soon as the matinee was over I rushed down to the box office and got a ticket for Saturday night with the Murphy/Corella/Saveliev cast. We’ll see...
Sonora Posted June 10, 2005 Posted June 10, 2005 Part is glorious in her femininity and musicality, the long, harmonious lines of her legs and feet, and her expressive ports de bras. She more than made up for the sketchiness of the plot and character development. I thought Gomes seemed a bit small for her. Hallberg and Tidwell were all one could ask for. It is difficult to tear one's eyes away from Hallberg. I imagine he and Part would look well together.
Mel Johnson Posted June 10, 2005 Posted June 10, 2005 But back, a moment to historicity. It has a lot to do with "who was this thing for, anyway?" Russia and the Turkish Empire had been at one another's throats for centuries, and this ballet provides a platform for more west-boosting and more Turk-bashing. Even though Jean de Brienne, the Crusader King of Jerusalem, was married three times, none of his brides was named Raymonda, and King Andy the 2 of Hungary was a scrawny kid 25 years his junior. His nobles thought they'd seen the last of him when he left for his Crusade, but even though he was a military disaster in his campaigns, it turned out that Crusading agreed with him, and he came back to Hungary, cleaned house of a lot of the nobles (chop-chop!), and signed the Golden Bull, thus firmly cementing Hungary to the Holy Roman Empire. Now, Russia had no actual love for the HRE, but in this ballet, Hungary stands for Western European virtue, with which the Russians, especially in Petersburg, thoroughly identified with. There's a scuffle going on in the EU even now about admitting Turkey as a part of the European Union!
nysusan Posted June 11, 2005 Posted June 11, 2005 Oh, I forgot to mention one very important change they’ve made in the staging. At the end of the dream sequence, Raymonda no longer wakes up lying on the middle of the floor with her tutu all crumbled beneath her. Now, she staggers backward from the center to the side of the stage where her friends have discreetly entered with her chair. She falls backward into it and sits in a pose reminiscent of the way it was done in the film with Dudinskaya. Much better!
carbro Posted June 11, 2005 Author Posted June 11, 2005 Sat. Mat. Michele Wiles as Raymonda, with Gomes and Solymosi. Four friends (again): Abrera, Liceica, Hallberg, Tidwell. Countess Sybelle: Meunier. Lady in White: Part. Earlier this season I had said that Michele had become a careful dancer at the expense of her spark. Well, pass the Worcestershire sauce, because I'm about to eat my words. Her Raymonda was a completely realized performance. Her rock-solid technique supported the progression of a dreamy and confused adolescent princess to the queen of her domain. This most musical of dancers was radiant from the beginning, but by the end she glowed like a pearl. I expected her to be too tall for Marcelo, but not so -- at least not seriously so. And the two shared a dynamic chemistry. The somnolent audience :yawn: erupted after the dream scene pas de deux , a study in restrained passion. The deleves of Michele's dream scene variation were impossibly slow. What a gift that a ballerina even tried that, even if there was a small loss of control. One indication of Michele's ballerina authority was the palpable hush that fell over the house as she slowly, regally made her entrance for her last ("clapping") variation and claimed her center stage spot. It was one of those non-dancing moments that lets you know magic is happening. Brava, Michele!
accob Posted June 12, 2005 Posted June 12, 2005 (edited) Thursday Night: Herrera, Beloserkovsky, Bocca I must say I liked Paloma better than I have in past seasons. This ballet is perfectly suited to her in that her technique is strong and consistent and that is exactly what is needed. She executed every single pirouette, balance, and transition perfectly- there was not one flaw, not one misstep, teeter-totter, hop, skip, pause...it was so smooth- I was amazed. She interpreted Raymonda as a youthful, Giselle-esque girl who is almost frightened by the perspective of suitors courting her but is at thesame time thrilled. The one part I really did not like is her solo with the chiffon scarf. She looked extremely uncomfortable, and was just flinging that scarf up and down like she was trying to get water to drip out of it to dry it. There wasn't that sense of the graceful flowy scarf making beautiful patterns in the wind :rolleyes: , it just looked really strange. Anyway, I felt that the pairing of her with Beloserkovsky was just awful. They looked so concenrated on the technicalities, throughout all their pas de deux (even in the dream scene) they just looked so worried, they didn't ever relax, they never looked eachother into the eyes. Granted the partnering in thisballet is extermely difficult, and they pulled off all the elements very well. Beloserkovsky, however, was such an unloving suitor. He showed off himself (quite well, I must add) but never her. When Bocca came out, however, it was a completely different story. Herrera somehow suddenly became a human being! Obviouly aroused by his presence, she constantly stared him in the eyes, and became excited everytime he'd approach- she smiled and was even a little seductive. Of course, with Bocca there, it's pretty hard not to be- unless you're one to be intimidated. Bocca was an ardent suitor who was in love with Raymonda as much as Beloserkovsky wasn't. Not to mention that the two look better together than Herrera with Beloserkovsky! To have De Brienne win the duel was strange- his sword was half the size of Abderakhman's and the poor guy kept getting knocked over by Abderakhman (as much as Bocca attempted to "bounce off and flail away in pain") Herrera's Raymonda was obviously very much taken with Bocca's Aberakhman and to have her wed De Brienne (with Abderakhman killed off almost 40 minutes before the end of the ballet) seemed extremely strange to me. Did anyone feel this way with any of the other casts? Oh, a word about Part- I saw her as the Lady in White, and even covered head to toe in a white robe I thought she was absolutely gorgeous. Her lines are exquisite, and her presense is so grand and elegant- the moment she made her entrance I could tell this would be a special performance- she has this ability to create an aura around her without even doing that much. I loved her and I look forward to seeing more of her later this season. Stella Abrerra looked beautiful in her solos as well. The costumes and scenery are so beautiful in this production! It all looked so rich and fairytale-like, colorful and creative. It added so much to the ballet. P.S. Sitting in seat 7 (all the way on the left) in first row is a whole experience on its own. It had some surprising benefits. I enjoyed some *hysterical* backstage performances by certain favorite performers of mine during the last 40 minutes of the ballet (ahemmm ). Edited June 12, 2005 by accob
Dansuer85 Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 Carbro, thanks so much for that review!! I'm so happy to hear that Michelle did such a wonderful job in Raymonda! It's nice to hear that she is still flourshing and growing into her technique!
Colleen Boresta Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 I also attended the Saturday matinee. First of all, I want to thank Carbo for expressing my thoughts about Michele Wiles' performance, and expressing much better than I ever could. Saturday was the third time I've seen "Raymonda". Last year's "Raymonda" with Wiles/Halberg/Molina I enjoyed a lot, but this year I really loved this ballet. Even though the plot is paper thin and far-fetched to boot, I found myself totally absorbed in the ballet from start to finish. I know Kevin McKenzie has made a few changes to this year's "Raymonda", but the performances were the reason I loved it so much on Saturday. I wasn't expecting much from Tamas Solymosi as Akerakhman after having read about his disappointing performance of the Black Swan pas de deux. But Solymosi was very good, both in his acting and his dancing. And he was very sexy too, but not as sexy as Marcelo Gomes. As Carbo has already said, Wiles and Gomes have great chemistry together. Their pas de deux after Jean de Brienne kills the Saracen was so beautiful I was almost in tears. I also loved Stella Abrera, Anna Liceica, David Halberg, and Danny Tidwell as Raymonda's friends. I was very disappointed when I saw that Tidwell is going to be replace Ethan Stiefel in "Le Spectre de la Rose". I didn't even know who Tidwell was. But after seeing him dance in "Raymonda" I'm really looking forward to his performance in "Le Spectre de la Rose". Now if I could only see Tidwell partnered with Maria Riccetto instead of Xiomara Reyes. I should be fair and reserve judgement on Reyes' performance until I actually see her in the role.
Andres Posted June 14, 2005 Posted June 14, 2005 I too was at the Matinee Raymonda and enjoyed the performance very much. Wiles danced very well with Gomes and Solymosi in particular was a very good partner for Wiles. She seemed less secure with Gomes probably due to Gomes' recent injury. Tidwell,Hallberg, Liceica, and Abrera were all excellent as the friends. For me the real star of the performance was Carmen Corella as the Spanish Dancer. She inhabited the stage with such flair and joy that one could not take one's eyes off her. It's a shame that ABT does not use her in more roles.
Alexandra Posted June 14, 2005 Posted June 14, 2005 Welcome, Andres! Thanks for posting about the "Raymonda" performance. Glad to read that Hallberg is back, and that Wiles did well. When you have a minute, please come to the Welcome Forum and introduce yourself.
Recommended Posts