REVIEWS: NYCB Spring 2007, Weeks 2-3

[bobbi]

I was at last night's dress rehearsal but will leave it to other, more articulate posters to go into details. But I think it will be a huge hit. It was given a Standing O at the end by what seemed to me a non-regular ballet going audience. Peter spoke to the audience before the curtain went up, introducing the major players who put the ballet together. He was quite charming.

I very much liked the scenery, am a little "iffy" about the costumes. No. 1 for me was that it's not boring (my main complaint about other R&J's). Thank goodness, the "whores" are no where in sight -- just wholesome, frolicsome villagers. Outstanding dancers: Sterling and Robbie, of course. But the loudest applause went to Danny Ulbricht for his pyrotechnics. Antonio and Joaquim were also terrific. And the sword fighting is the best I've seen in the ballet world -- very Erroll Flynn-like. I now will be going to the other casts.

See it.

[Balanchinomane]

Just got home - I loved it. Hyltin became a star tonight - Fairchild her passionate consort.

The characters told the story without a lot of mime - it seemed modern, concise and

spare of acting - it was mostly dance ---- the comaraderie of Romeo and his friends -

Ulbricht drew the most applause. You'll hate Jock Soto for hitting his "daughter."

The set was cool - just one piece with moveable parts.The costumes were

beautiful without being too fussy - the colors worked well together except Tybalt,

the only one in bright yellow. The sword fighting is amazing, the orchestra was great,

a very satisfying and enjoyable production. Me thinks it's a hit -

Peter gave a little speech about Lincoln - and introduced President Clinton as sitting

in the seat Lincoln used to sit in - the joke being Lincoln Kirstein was the President

of SAB so tonight he could be called President Lincoln. It was kind of lame, considering

what happened to Pres Lincoln in a theater. But people laughed. Wonder if Clinton

stayed for dinner?

[zerbinetta]

Nothing could make me hate Jock Soto .. I hope.

[Michael]

Act I is the classic comic book version of the ballet. It's mildly entertaining.

Act II is a disaster. Long, tedious, boring, trite, in bad taste, dramatically at cross purposes. Things start to go wrong in the bedroom scene. Love how R & J get back under the covers and start to hump away, and Gina comes in to take a peek. Remember, at this point, Romeo has just killed Juliet's brother, a sense of doom and tragedy should begin to intrude. Instead a carnal reprise of the balcony. After that, one liners just occur to the viewer non stop. Hubbe as the Monk from Napoli gone astray.

Great performances by Fairchild and Hyltin. But they create the old problem one always has praising dancers in Martins: "This dancer requires great applause, she has danced her heart out. But how can you, with a whole heart, applaud a dancer for doing this?"

[drb]

How much significance should be given to Peter's naming the ballet after the Claire Danes/Leonardo di Caprio movie Romeo + Juliet rather than the Bard's version Romeo and Juliet? Perhaps the couple are to act more like children, overcome by newly felt emotions to the point that their actions are beyond their still undeveloped rational control, without intellectual complexity, trapped in the torrent of Fate?

[Helene]

Act I is the classic comic book version of the ballet. It's mildly entertaining.

Act II is a disaster. Long, tedious, boring, trite, in bad taste, dramatically at cross purposes. Things start to go wrong in the bedroom scene. Love how R & J get back under the covers and start to hump away, and Gina comes in to take a peek. Remember, at this point, Romeo has just killed Juliet's brother, a sense of doom and tragedy should begin to intrude. Instead a carnal reprise of the balcony. After that, one liners just occur to the viewer non stop. Hubbe as the Monk from Napoli gone astray.

Great performances by Fairchild and Hyltin. But they create the old problem one always has praising dancers in Martins: "This dancer requires great applause, she has danced her heart out. But how can you, with a whole heart, applaud a dancer for doing this?"

Now THAT woke me up this morning.

I sometimes wonder if Martins' approach to relationships might have been better served had he been a modern choreographer, and always found it ironic that it was his friend Baryshnikov who ventured in that direction.

[Stanley]

I thought the idea to minimize the production into 2 acts was a great idea at first. But when I saw it last night, I felt that there were a few major scenes that are key to the plot that were left out, and the audience was just left to assume what was happening. You obviously have to go into this production already knowing the story, and knowing what happens when. For example, when the Friar is to inform Romeo that Juliet is not actually dead, but is infact asleep. I think that is such a key element in the story that makes it even more tragic, because if the Friar had followed through, it would have been a happy ending. Also, I didn't get a sense of tension between the Capulets and Montagues, luckily though they were color coded.

Along with that, I thought the 'box' in the middle of the stage was rather intriguing at first. But then it turned out just to be a 3-D backdrop/portal, and I thought there could have been a lot more use out of it.

I thought that Sterling and Robert were great though. And the swordfighting was fun and exciting. The slap I thought was very effective. A lot of great 'one-liners' as mentioned before.

[harpergroup]

....I felt that there were a few major scenes that are key to the plot that were left out, and the audience was just left to assume what was happening. You obviously have to go into this production already knowing the story, and knowing what happens when. For example, when the Friar is to inform Romeo that Juliet is not actually dead, but is infact asleep. I think that is such a key element in the story that makes it even more tragic, because if the Friar had followed through, it would have been a happy ending. ....

I believe that almost all of the current R&J versions leave out the element of the messenger and his failure to reach Romeo. If memory serves, there once was a version (by Nureyev?) that included it, but it definitely is not included in the Macmillan version that New Yorkers see at ABT.

[clicker285]

Act I is the classic comic book version of the ballet. It's mildly entertaining.

Act II is a disaster. Long, tedious, boring, trite, in bad taste, dramatically at cross purposes. Things start to go wrong in the bedroom scene. Love how R & J get back under the covers and start to hump away, and Gina comes in to take a peek. Remember, at this point, Romeo has just killed Juliet's brother, a sense of doom and tragedy should begin to intrude. Instead a carnal reprise of the balcony. After that, one liners just occur to the viewer non stop. Hubbe as the Monk from Napoli gone astray.

Great performances by Fairchild and Hyltin. But they create the old problem one always has praising dancers in Martins: "This dancer requires great applause, she has danced her heart out. But how can you, with a whole heart, applaud a dancer for doing this?"

Michael's excellent review is on target. After months and months of pre-opening Romeo and Juliet hype by Peter Martins, Romeo and Juliet has come a cropper.

Of course we value all the dancers however Martins can not claim any responsibility for their ability. He did not teach them how to dance. Too bad he didn't ask them what Romeo and Juliet was all about.

[Mel Johnson]

In other words, it was good and rotten?

[liebs]

Michael. not to be too much of a smart ass BUT Tybalt is not Juliet's brother but her cousin. In West Side Story, Tony kills Maria's brother.

So in the words of Cole Porter, everyone "brush up your Shakespeare."

[Rhapsody]

Well that explains why they went back at it! He was just a cousin. (Sorry, couldn't resist. )

[Klavier]

More details from me tomorrow, but yesterday evening I saw the first Romeo and Juliet (though I didn't see Bill Clinton), and tonight I saw the first Orfeo ed Euridice at the Met. Both use a unit set, and both have a good deal of dancing. One is at best all right, with a lot of weak points; the other is one of the most imaginative operatic productions I've seen in years and an absolute triumph for all concerned. In a few words: if you have a choice, go to the Met.

[carbro]

I went in determined to keep an open mind. Long story short: I'm not going back for a long, long time.

The best scene was truly good -- the confrontation between Juliet and her parents, when she tries to get out of marrying Paris. The tension was palpable, and when the music quieted, you could hear a pin drop. My theory: the grownups, with their years of onstage experience, dominated the scene.

Darci is a very good actress and gave a wonderful Lady C. She has to learn to walk in the long dress though, because no Renaissance lady would ever lift her skirt to reveal her calves (or, in one instance, thighs ).

Jock was totally credible as a controlling patriarch who assumed it was his right to control the future of his genetic lineage. I did not feel that his hitting Juliet was gratuitous, but there was other hitting which was gratuitous.

I missed the harlots. Their purpose is to contrast Romeo before and after meeting Juliet. Instead we get a head-in-the-clouds guy clutching both hands over his heart. Very deep . Still, it was more than Juliet got.

The street scenes overall are mere sketches, until, that is, the Prince of Verona enters. Albert Evans is another experienced grownup who can command attention and assert authority with no apparent effort. The actual sword fighting in Act II is pretty exciting -- not so in Act I.

Which brings me to the issue of placing the intermission. As with the Sleeping Beauty, it seems whimsical and not the best choice. The virgins in Act I vs. the marrieds in Act II?

Then there are the missed musical cues. It's clear that Prokofiev read Shakespeare. Less clear that the choreographer did. Juliet is in the ballroom almost from the start. She and Romeo have eye contact, but nothing happens between them for quite a while. Romeo and his buds dance the trio (usually performed in front of the palazzo after the invited guests enter) in the middle of the ballroom, while other guests ignore them. What's going on here? Is this a literal or abstract take on the play?

Then, when we get Juliet's entrance music, she's already been enjoying herself for quite a while. This score is so closely cued to the drama, the themes so intricately woven, a choreographer pretty much has to put them to the use for which it was intended.

Too bad it wasn't better. I concur with Michael -- the dancers, the youngsters, deserved better for their efforts. Suozzi, especially, showed that he could be a great Romeo -- given the right choreography. And I don't mean the MacMillan, the Grigorovich or the Cranko! I've never seen the Neumeier or the Ashton, or (except on film) the Lavrovsky. Maybe what we need is a new R&J!

Meanwhile, I think this will likely serve its primary purpose, at least for a few years. This was the first time in many a season -- including Nuts -- when the house appeared to have a butt in every seat.

[drb]

Well, Mr. Macaulay of the Times was not pleased. He really ripped Per Kirkeby for backdrop, costumes and set. But he was kind to the young dancers.

[Klavier]

Well, Mr. Macaulay of the Times was not pleased. He really ripped Per Kirkeby for backdrop, costumes and set. But he was kind to the young dancers.

Haven't opened my Times yet (er, nytimes.com), but Per Kirkeby deserved every bit of that ripping. Only some of the costumes were passable.

[atm711]

I have a solution for Peter Martins redemption----next year is the 100th anniversary of Antony Tudor's birth...perhaps he can chuck this apparent mess and revive Tudor's R&J---with truly Renaissance decor.... ----forgive me for feeling a bit smug this morning---after the Kirkeby Swan Lake I knew I could not see another of his productions and I did not buy a ticket.....

[drb]

Back when word of R+J was blowing in the wind, in my "mind" I cast Kathryn Morgan as Juliet. So tonight's the night that I'll eat crow. Or not. Go get 'em, Katie!

[Buddy]

Back when word of R+J was blowing in the wind, in my "mind" I cast Kathryn Morgan as Juliet. So tonight's the night that I'll eat crow. Or not. Go get 'em, Katie!

Hopefully no crow tonight.

I just got back from the Mariinsky Festival where I saw Maria Kowroski, Damien Woetzel, and Philip Neal perform for the first time. They were very well received. I became an instant NYCB fan ! I have since bought the video of the NYCB performing assorted Balanchine. It's the first time that I have seen Suzanne Farrell dance. She is an absolutely beautiful dancer ! A discovery of another wonderful new world of ballet for me.

[drb]

Clive Barnes makes a number of cogent points in his review in today's Post. In particular regarding the version Mr. Martins rejected for NYCB:

Martins has taken a purely classical approach to Sergei Prokofiev's music, as did Frederick Ashton in his 1955 version for the Royal Danish Ballet (a revival in which Martins himself appeared).

I won't go over his points, as I'm sure the review will soon be posted in Links.

Joel Lobenthal in the Sun takes a relatively positive position:

NYCB's new "Romeo and Juliet" is a high-concept mis-en-scène, supporting an assertive projection by Mr. Martins of how he believes the balletic classics should be reinterpreted today.

[bart]

Macaulay begins his review with devastating contempt for the Per Kirkeby designs and Kirkeby plus Kirsten Lund Nielsen costumes. (When did you last see a phrase like "bargain-basement Italian Renaissance with mod-abstract squiggles" or a comparison with "Spamalot" in a Times review?)

Martins has expressed his desire to create opportunities for the youngest professional dancers in a classic story which, to hear him talk about it, is primariliy "about" youth. Fair enough. But you also need to give those young dancers a setting that does not distract, overpower, or vulgarize their efforts. And does not undercut the central issues in their story.

Romeo and Juliet does indeed contain lots of material that expresses the essence of adolescence and resonates with young audiences: instant infatuation, a big bed and lots of sex, sword fights, distasteful older relations, interfering friends, hyperactive crowds, etc.. Lots of other stories have these elements too. Where Shakespeare's version transcends the competition is in expressing these conventional details, powerfully, dramatically and with great poetry, in order to raise serious questions (and offer a few answers) about love, , fate, death, and reconciliation. How well does the NYCB version accomplish that?

Klavier's comparison with the Met's Orfeo ed Euridice production raises an important point. Opera audiences in the main American theaters are now demanding -- and increasingly GETTING -- productions in which singing, orchestra, design, lighting, etc., are interwoven into a unified aesthetic whole. Opera fans today expect something approximating gesamtkunstwerk on the opera stage, even if not in the full Wagnerian sense. I cannot imagine an opera fan who would consider a production with a few promising young singers, one or two emotionally compelling scenes, a generally "well played" score, to be a triumph.

What about the NYCB's R&J? So far, most of what I've read here -- and in a couple of reviews --has been about this or that isolated aspect of the production. Dancers I like; dancers I don't like. Bits of action that were effective; bits of action that were distracting. This was "promising" but that should be thrown out. I know that -- at $1.5 milliion -- this production will be with the NYCB for a long time. Most probably it will be tinkered with. But I have some questions:

The reviews so far suggest something pieced together from this or that element, rather than an integrated and satisfying work of performing art. Is this case? Is there any artistic vision beyond the desire to give youth a chance? Was this production, on the whole, worth the effort and investment? Is it an R&J that New York City should be proud of? Does it do Shakespeare, Prokofiev, and the art of story-telling ballet the honor they deserve?

[bart]

Today's LINKS now has 5 reviews: Macaulay in the Times, Barnes in the Post, Lobenthal in the Sun, Tobi Tobias on Bloomberg.com, and Johnson in the Star Ledger. Thanks, dirac!

Here's a direct connection. It's all in the first post:

Reviews of Romeo and Juliet

[Ray]

[...]

Klavier's comparison with the Met's Orfeo ed Euridice production raises an important point. Opera audiences in the main American theaters are now demanding -- and increasingly GETTING -- productions in which singing, orchestra, design, lighting, etc., are interwoven into a unified aesthetic whole. Opera fans today expect something approximating gesamtkunstwerk on the opera stage, even if not in the full Wagnerian sense. I cannot imagine an opera fan who would consider a production with a few promising young singers, one or two emotionally compelling scenes, a generally "well played" score, to be a triumph.

What about the NYCB's R&J? So far, most of what I've read here -- and in a couple of reviews --has been about this or that isolated aspect of the production. Dancers I like; dancers I don't like. Bits of action that were effective; bits of action that were distracting. This was "promising" but that should be thrown out. I know that -- at $1.5 milliion -- this production will be with the NYCB for a long time. Most probably it will be tinkered with. But I have some questions:

The reviews so far suggest something pieced together from this or that element, rather than an integrated and satisfying work of performing art. Is this case? Is there any artistic vision beyond the desire to give youth a chance? Was this production, on the whole, worth the effort and investment? Is it an R&J that New York City should be proud of? Does it do Shakespeare, Prokofiev, and the art of story-telling ballet the honor they deserve?

SO well put, Bart. I think if you review a lot of BTers' discontent with new ballets you can trace it back to serious questions about ADs' artistic vision or lack therof. More now than ever before, opera has really gotten it together, whereas ballet seems stubbornly unable/unwilling to absorb knowledge from its sister arts--or even from the successes/challenges other dance companies have faced (a "they're not like us so we have nothing to learn from them" attitude prevails, so it seems). As a practitioner-turned-viewer, it's getting to be more than a little disheartening.

[jllaney]

That picture in the NY Times of the young men fighting is pretty funny. It looks like a box of crayons came to life and started a sword fight.

[SanderO]

We attended Wednesday's evening performance.

Tiler Peck was wonderful.

The choreography was not the least bit memorable... but the orchestra sounded wonderful.

At the ball most many of the guests had their backs to stage center.. odd that looked.

If you know the story of R&J... it was not faithful or well conveyed in this presentation.

The design team tried to find some modernist aesthetic which had one foot in fidelity to the times and the other into some 19/20th century art genre I can't quite name... not quite impressionism... but it was sort of crude looking and made no sense. I much prefer the way the ABT does their scenery/sets.

The moving set was clever but was a trap because the designers once committed to it had to force that set ... reconfigured to work for all the scenes... It was barely credible.

After all we are making a leap of faith... suspending our disbelief when we watch a performance on stage.. especially something like opera and ballet which use abstraction as part of their currency. But sets, costumes and lighting can anchor our fantasy in a bit of reality. These sets worked against that.

Lighting was no better than one would get in an amateur production. I recall some incredibly lighting in met and ABT productions ... even NYCB Nut.. or Firebird.

The ballet was not even well rehearsed and there seemed to be several missteps.

The sword fights were well done... but not great ballet.

When they turned R&J into West Side Story they took the classic story and really put it into a completely new context and it revealed the universal themes so well... anyone could relate to them.

For me... if I did not know R&J... I would have thought this was a silly story.

But I did love Tiler and thought she did a great job at being an adolescent in love.

Peter Martins and company... back to the drawing board on this one... and be careful with your "aesthetic"... because not everyone will feel comfortable with the genre you use with such a classic.

While the costumes were interesting the same comment applies...They committed to a certain "aesthetic" and tried to be consistent.. but it made the costumes a distraction.. at the ball it was especially obvious.

Don't take my word for it.. see it for yourself. Despite all the above... we enjoyed seeing ballet. Never can see enough of that!