REVIEWS: NYCB Spring 2007, Weeks 2-3

[dirac]

[...] corporal punishment would have been considered quite in order for such a rebellious daughter once upon a time, and Lady Capulet might even have joined in.

Well, it's certainly a matter of debate whether noble persons would engage in such behavior. But whatever the case, Martins's production, by all the descriptions, seems uninterested in the finer points of realism or historical accuracy.

The children of the nobility elsewhere were indeed subjected to corporal punishment and wives were not exempt either. I can’t say what went on in Verona specifically, but such things happened. (When I first read about the production I assumed the slap was a try for period verismo, to show just how bad things could get for Juliet if she persisted in her defiance.)

[carbro]

Whatever it is that's happening to the ballerina in the "Central Park in the Dark" section of Balanchine's Ivesiana unsettles me far more than The Slap ...

But that "whatever" (and we don't know for certain what it is -- or even whether it's merely in the woman's imagination) is an unusual event in the Balanchine oeuvre. Yes, LaValse is another instance. And a relatively small number of other ballets. The Host never touches the Sleepwalker in LaSonnambula, but his relationship to her (which is never defined) is also unsettling. What troubles me about The Slap, which I argue fits its context in this ballet, is that it seems a culmination of themes that dominate the Martins oeuvre, which I find extremely misogynistic.

[KayDenmark]

I'm no great fan of Martins' choreography, but I can't agree that his work is misogynistic, Carbro.

Much of his choreography deals with problematic and disappointing romantic relationships, and because he is coming from a male point of view, his frustration is expressed as frustration with women. But that's no more misogynistic than "Sex and the City." the same frustration expressed from a woman's point of view, is anti-male.

[Kathleen O'Connell]

I'm no great fan of Martins' choreography, but I can't agree that his work is misogynistic, Carbro.

Much of his choreography deals with problematic and disappointing romantic relationships, and because he is coming from a male point of view, his frustration is expressed as frustration with women. But that's no more misogynistic than "Sex and the City." the same frustration expressed from a woman's point of view, is anti-male.

I was thinking about this last night: I’m not sure I’d call Martins misogynistic – I don’t think he actively hates women (or at least that he doesn’t demonstrate this through his ballets). I think women are simply opaque to him in a way that they weren’t for Balanchine (and aren’t for Wheeldon). Even the anonymous ballerinas in Balanchine’s leotard ballets have an imagined inner life that is evidenced through the choreography. (The possible exception is La Porte in Variations pour une Porte et un Soupir, who is after all, a door.) Melissa Hayden’s quip that the first movement ballerina in Symphony in C is “the hostess with the mostest” resonates because you know exactly what kind of party she’d throw, even if a ballerina of only modest gifts dances the role. One can imagine the conversation that the ballerinas in Divertimento No. 15 might have around the dinner table, or the one that those in Agon, Episodes, and Four Temperaments might have. (I’ll go out on a limb and say that I think that when Balanchine puts two women in a ballet it’s so the prima will have someone to talk to: the second violin ballerina in Concerto Barocco comes back at the end of the second movement so that the first violin ballerina can tell someone just how terrific she feels. In Balanchine, sisterhood is powerful.) I think this is why the unsettling women in Balanchine’s ballets – and I ‘d add the Siren in Prodigal Son and the Coquette in La Sonnambula to the list – are so unsettling: their inner experience (a degraded one in the case of these two) is objectified, which is quite a different thing from being turned into an object. (It’s worth noting that these two don’t have any “sisters,” either. Despite being surrounded by an army of revelers, the Siren is the most alone person on the planet, even – especially – when she’s wrapped around the Son.) And isn’t it the very opaqueness and “objectness” of La Porte – as exemplified by the literalness of her response to the music, her total lack of agency -- that makes Variations pour une Porte et un Soupir the oddball in the Balanchine rep that it is?

But the women in Martins’ ballets are objects in the worst way: there’s nothing going on in there. This isn’t hating women, this is being oblivious to them. Martins has to resort to blatant sentimentality (Songs of the Auvergne, Todo Buenos Aires – the version for Bocca) or blunt gesture (Them Twos or R+J – think of Juliet’s Nurse) to impart even a whiff of personhood to the women in his ballets. When Martins adds another woman (or two or three) to the ballet, it means nothing. (When he adds another man, as in Concerto for Two Solo Pianos, I think it means trouble.) I’ve spent years trying to sort out what’s up with the twinned couples that appear so frequently in Martins’ ballets (Fearful Symmetries, The Red Violin) and just draw a blank.

This may be Martins’ point, of course, and I may simply be missing it big-time. But I think the blankness arises at least in part from certain characteristics of his style of step-spinning that constrain the expressiveness of the materials in his hands (I don’t really have the resources to talk about this intelligently, so bear with me). His combinations persistently run counter to (as opposed to actively subverting) the basic up-and-out / torsion away from the center thrust that I see at the heart of ballet’s vocabulary and the expressiveness of that vocabulary. His dancers move their limbs across their bodies, not out from their centers. They make shapes that don’t really develop along a trajectory and resolve. (Eventually the arms get flung up and there’s a lunge out over one leg so the other one looks as if its been extended. Or there’s a sauté arabesque. Or a woman gets picked up and she manipulates her legs for a while. When she gets put down, she crosses on leg over the other, pops one foot onto pointe, and twists like a wire baggie tie.) They look always to be en face, even when moving on the diagonal: they are flattened against a plane rather than fully occupying the space around them. There’s no intra- or inter-phrase change in the texture of the dancers’ movement. Steps and shapes are repeated (and repeated and repeated) without variation or the kind of change of context that might give the repetition some particular expressive resonance or coloring. Everybody gets pretty much the same steps to do in the same way and the steps look hard, but to no particular end. (I remember that the choreography for the male demi-soloists in Octet looked particularly punishing, but even though I’ve seen the ballet four times, I can’t remember anything else about it.) There's tricky paternering for the sake of tricky partnering -- not to crystallize something about the interaction of two people. There’s nothing about the particulars of the choreography that develops the ballet’s narrative arc. I only saw R+J once, and in fairness it may take a viewing or two to do it justice, but honestly, it looked as if Juliet was doing the same steps over and over from beginning to end – you’d think something would change along the way.

OK – lunchtime is over, back to the grind, mid-thought or no ... I think I drifted from saying that women were opaque to Martins to saying that even if they weren’t he doesn’t have the choreographic chops to tell us about it.

[bart]

[...] corporal punishment would have been considered quite in order for such a rebellious daughter once upon a time, and Lady Capulet might even have joined in.

Well, it's certainly a matter of debate whether noble persons would engage in such behavior. But whatever the case, Martins's production, by all the descriptions, seems uninterested in the finer points of realism or historical accuracy.

The children of the nobility elsewhere were indeed subjected to corporal punishment and wives were not exempt either. I can’t say what went on in Verona specifically, but such things happened. (When I first read about the production I assumed the slap was a try for period verismo, to show just how bad things could get for Juliet if she persisted in her defiance.)

I'm with dirac here. Girls in noble famiilies were actually much MORE likely to be forced into marriage alliances like the one with Count Paris than would girls from merchant or peasant families. Nobly born girls had a single social function: to serve the family, usually by entering marriages considered advantageous to the corporate unit.

There are many cases in European history (from ancient Rome well into the Renaissance) of girls being beaten regularly, abused, locked up, starved almost to death, sent to the strictest convents, etc. By Shakespeare's day "advanced" opinion -- influenced by a century of Christian humanism, the more liberal Protestant reformers, and the rising power and status of the wealthy merchant class -- was changing. By the 1590s, Shakespeare could assume that his audiences, even the nobles among them, would identify with Juliet, not her authoritarian family. This would not have been the case at the beginning of the 16th century.

[drb]

... Even the anonymous ballerinas in Balanchine's leotard ballets have an imagined inner life that is evidenced through the choreography. ...

One can imagine the conversation that the ballerinas in Divertimento No. 15 might have around the dinner table, or the one that those in Agon, Episodes, and Four Temperaments might have. (I'll go out on a limb and say that I think that when Balanchine puts two women in a ballet it's so the prima will have someone to talk to: the second violin ballerina in Concerto Barocco comes back at the end of the second movement so that the first violin ballerina can tell someone just how terrific she feels. In Balanchine, sisterhood is powerful.)...

But the women in Martins' ballets are objects in the worst way: there's nothing going on in there. This isn't hating women, this is being oblivious to them. ...

OK - lunchtime is over, back to the grind, mid-thought or no ... I think I drifted from saying that women were opaque to Martins to saying that even if they weren't he doesn't have the choreographic chops to tell us about it.

Wow! Perhaps this is the way Mr. Macaulay should have gone. Including all the analysis I "..."-out for brevity. Your whole post is a must-read. Wishing you longer lunches, and Thank You!

[Klavier]

By the 1590s, Shakespeare could assume that his audiences, even the nobles among them, would identify with Juliet, not her authoritarian family.

Let's not forget, though, that Shakespeare's Lord Capulet is by no means as rigidly authoritarian as your statement implies. In conversation with Paris early in the play (before Juliet shows signs of being refractory, and before The Slap), Capulet is much more inclined to take matters slowly and to emphasize that what matters most to him is Juliet's happiness:

PARIS

But now, my lord, what say you to my suit?

CAPULET

But saying o'er what I have said before.

My child is yet a stranger in the world.

She hath not seen the change of fourteen years.

Let two more summers wither in their pride

Ere we may think her ripe to be a bride.

PARIS

Younger than she are happy mothers made.

CAPULET

And too soon marred are those so early made.

Earth hath swallowed all my hopes but she.

She's the hopeful lady of my earth.

But woo her, gentle Paris, get her heart.

My will to her consent is but a part.

An she agreed within her scope of choice,

Lies my consent and fair according voice.

A speech like this, as well as Capulet's refusal to throw Romeo out when he crashes the Capulets' party, is an indication that the young lovers' marriage could have ended more happily had they kept their heads. And Friar Laurence marries the two not because he believes Romeo is truly in love, but because he hopes the match will reconcile their families. But instead, by killing Tybalt to avenge Mercutio's murder, Romeo himself dashes any possibility of a hopeful resolution for himself and Juliet, and the tragic events mount ever higher as the play continues.

[Dale]

Klavier, thank you for that. One of my problems is that Martins seems to ignore or is ignorant of Romeo's "fatal flaw" - impetuosity. In this production, Romeo is treated almost like Siegfried or Prince Florimond: bored with court life, looking for his mission. But that's not Romeo's character at all; that's not what is motivating him.

[dirac]

By the 1590s, Shakespeare could assume that his audiences, even the nobles among them, would identify with Juliet, not her authoritarian family.

A speech like this, as well as Capulet's refusal to throw Romeo out when he crashes the Capulets' party, is an indication that the young lovers' marriage could have ended more happily had they kept their heads. And Friar Laurence marries the two not because he believes Romeo is truly in love, but because he hopes the match will reconcile their families. But instead, by killing Tybalt to avenge Mercutio's murder, Romeo himself dashes any possibility of a hopeful resolution for himself and Juliet, and the tragic events mount ever higher as the play continues.

True, Klavier, but the actual text Martins or any other choreographer is working from is Prokofiev, not Shakespeare. I don’t see why in principle the conception of any character has to conform to Shakespeare’s as long as it makes sense in the context of the story and the score.

an indication that the young lovers' marriage could have ended more happily had they kept their heads.

Excellent point. Perhaps the core of the tragedy in Shakespeare is that their passion is such that it overrules their reason.

[Leigh Witchel]

Also the absence of counsel. That was the mistake of Choo-San Goh's production for Boston Ballet in '81. He introduced a "fate" character that shadowed Juliet. It diluted the fact that when Juliet needs guidance, she didn't/couldn't get it (forgive me - I haven't read the play in a while so I'm doing this off what I recall of the ballet, which as we know isn't the same text).

[Stanley]

Klavier, thank you for that. One of my problems is that Martins seems to ignore or is ignorant of Romeo's "fatal flaw" - impetuosity. In this production, Romeo is treated almost like Siegfried or Prince Florimond: bored with court life, looking for his mission. But that's not Romeo's character at all; that's not what is motivating him.

I completely agree that Martins had the wrong idea of who Romeo was, and didn't develop the character whatsoever. Romeo appears and you think, he's sad, and poetic; head in the clouds. But Why? There's no Rosaline... I guess it's just hormones? And then his two friends appear on que, except, they don't really seem like his 'friends', just two guys who were sent by the non-existant Lord Montague to make sure Romeo was OK. And then they try to cheer Romeo up by doing a few tricks here and there, and then finally Romeo gives in, and after an awkward pause they do a little turn and thats that. There was absolutely nothing driving Romeo, and the worst part was when he would appear out of nowhere, and just in time to stop the fights between Mercutio and Tybalt. Especially the second fight when it didnt come across why he was trying to stop them from fighting again. Isn't for Juliet? Isn't it so he and Juliet can be together? That didn't come across to me at all, just that he happened to be there at the right time (again) and that he was just a peacmaker between the two families. Well, what I think it comes down to is that Romeo is just a teenager, and like most teenagers, he should be impetuous, and ultimately he just wants a girl and someone to love; however, not so much in this version.

[bart]

CAPULET

But woo her, gentle Paris, get her heart.

My will to her consent is but a part.

An she agreed within her scope of choice,

Lies my consent and fair according voice.

Good point. And it makes Lord Capulet fairly "modern" in Shakespearean terms. It appears in Act I, and Lord C is indeed in a affable and self-confident mood. Everything is working out according to plans. (On several occasions, he mentions that he is quite confident that Juliet will agree to the marriage. He knows his innocent and inexperienced "child.")

On the other hand, let's move ahead to Act III, scene 5 (Quarto). Both Lord and Lady C interpret Juliet's "heaviness" about her marriage to the death of their kinsman Tybalt. When Juliet again refuses, after her secret marriage to Romeo, and wedding night, Lady C reacts suddenly and savagely: "I would the fool were marry'd to her grave."

At which, Lord C works himself into a rage (the speech that begins "How,how, how, how, chopt-logic? What is this?"):

"But fettle your fine joints 'gainst Thursday next

To go with Paris to Saint Peter's Church,

Or I will drag thee on a hurdle thither.

Out! you green-sickness cariron, out! you bagggage, / You tallow-face!"

This leads the Nurse to attempt an intervention, which drives Lord C even further:

"Thursday is near, lay hand on heart, advise,

And you be mine, I;'ll give you to my friend,

And you be not, hang, beg, starve, die in the streets,

For by my soul I'll ne'er acknowledge thee

Nor what is mine shall never do thee good."

A stage slap seems rather mild compared to that that.

The idea that the play could have a happy ending if R and J had behaved differently my be attractive to modern audiences. But is it plalusible in terms of the period? Legally they were children. This status would follow Juliet -- as a female -- for the rest of her life should she not marry. The acceptance of their marriage would have depended on the willingness of both families to give their children's wishes priority over the long-standing family feud to which both sides were committed. This value system makes Juliet's resistance to it serious indeed.

This was the fate to which both these children were born, and Juliet, as a female, even more than Romeo. Maybe the figure of "fate" which Leigh mentions in the Boston Ballet version, dogging Juliet's footsteps from the beginning. isn't too far off the mark.

[Dale]

There are more dramatic inconsistencies in Martins' production. (Like Leigh, it's been awhile since I read Romeo and Juliet, so I hope this isn't wrong) After Romeo kills Tybalt, we see him in bed with Juliet - their wedding night. So she wakes up, looks at Romeo asleep and is embarrassed. He wakes up and has to woo her to bed. But if they've already been intimate, why does Romeo have to seduce her? And if they haven't been intimate, then what happened? Are we to think that he came into her room, curled up in a ball on her bed (clothed) and went to sleep? It doesn't make sense.

[carbro]

[The whole thing]

Wow! Let me catch my breath.

I doubt you did all that very clear thinking and precise and lovely writing while nibbling on your salad or falafel or . . .

So many ideas, so beautifully interwoven, and I can't disagree with any of your main points. Thank you, Kathleen

On an altogether different tack, I suddenly remembered last night that Martins' first ballet, Calcium Night Light, includes -- guess what? -- a slap! It's supposed to be playful.

[Kathleen O'Connell]

Whatever it is that's happening to the ballerina in the "Central Park in the Dark" section of Balanchine's Ivesiana unsettles me far more than The Slap ...

But that "whatever" (and we don't know for certain what it is -- or even whether it's merely in the woman's imagination) is an unusual event in the Balanchine oeuvre. Yes, LaValse is another instance. And a relatively small number of other ballets. The Host never touches the Sleepwalker in LaSonnambula, but his relationship to her (which is never defined) is also unsettling. What troubles me about The Slap, which I argue fits its context in this ballet, is that it seems a culmination of themes that dominate the Martins oeuvre, which I find extremely misogynistic.

I agree that The Slap is not out of context in this R+J, although it's unfortunately one of the most vivid things in it. Although I loathe the production, I appreciate Martins' attempt to avoid putting on a Merchant-Ivoryized Renaissance Disneyland version. I, at least, tend to get so besotted with the prettiness of that sort of thing that I lose the thread of how awful the characters' predicament really is. The Slap is a reminder that Juliet is really, truly at the limit of what a young heart should have to bear.

[Klavier]

True, Klavier, but the actual text Martins or any other choreographer is working from is Prokofiev, not Shakespeare. I don’t see why in principle the conception of any character has to conform to Shakespeare’s as long as it makes sense in the context of the story and the score.

Yes, but the post I responded to was discussing Shakespeare, not Prokofiev.

[Klavier]

The idea that the play could have a happy ending if R and J had behaved differently my be attractive to modern audiences. But is it plalusible in terms of the period?

I think it's plausible in terms of the drama Shakespeare created. (As a Shakespeare professor of mine said regarding the "period," "Shakespeare's understanding is less Elizabethan than Shakespearean.") Of course, there's no way really to know, even had Romeo controlled himself. But consider the timing too: the Mercutio/Tybalt murder occurs immediately after the wedding. I take your point about Capulet later in the play, but circumstances have changed: Romeo has killed a member of the Capulet family, which is not the best way to score points with one's girlfriend's father. And Juliet is starting to behave very defiantly, to her father's eyes.

[bart]

Not to beat the horse -- and at the risk of being for too long -- I just want to clarify one plot point:

I take your point about Capulet later in the play, but circumstances have changed: Romeo has killed a member of the Capulet family, which is not the best way to score points with one's girlfriend's father. And Juliet is starting to behave very defiantly, to her father's eyes.

But the Capulets don't know that Romeo is involved with Juliet. (Although, of course, the audience does.)

It's the shocking fact of Juliet's defiance alone, for which the parents can think of no other explanation than Tybalt's death, that provokes the parental rage.

Capulet leaps rapidly and direcly from smug pleasure in the deal with Paris to threatening violence against his own daugher. This is, I should think, almost impossible to make plausible for a modern audience. It may, however, explain Prokofiev's chioce of such dark, driving, ominous music for the court dance that introduces the Capulet ball. Big strides for the men. Rigid lines of dancers advancing towards the audience. Perhaps that's all there to tell us something about the brutality that lies just beneath the glamour, hierarchy and formality of the Capulet's world.

[SingerWhoMoves]

So sad to be out of NYC for this- but I was just browsing the company website, and noticed that Erica is now listed as a member of the Corps de ballet. Congratulations Erica!

[zerbinetta]

Some random thoughts on the R+J, for which I had three pair of tickets & exchanged the second two pair for repertory.

The main set piece resembles more than a little the restrooms at the Central Park Zoo.

The costumes would look a lot better without that graffiti all over them (as might the set .. well, maybe not).

Robert Fairchild might just grow up to be the dancer I had hoped Angel Corella would turn out to be.

The production and choreography could do with a massive amount of tinkering. Restoring the first curtain to after the balcony scene (& keep II & III together so we don't lose the dreaded streamlining effect) would be a start. Act I seems interminable enough without adding a scene to it & the two marketplace scenes make more sense coming together with the wedding sandwiched in between. They are mirror images & need to be seen together. More differentiation in the choreography for the balcony and bedroom scenes is a must.

It's probably too much to hope for, but Wheeldon's input might bring a hint of romance to the fore.

[Klavier]

Not to beat the horse -- and at the risk of being for too long -- I just want to clarify one plot point:

I take your point about Capulet later in the play, but circumstances have changed: Romeo has killed a member of the Capulet family, which is not the best way to score points with one's girlfriend's father. And Juliet is starting to behave very defiantly, to her father's eyes.

But the Capulets don't know that Romeo is involved with Juliet. (Although, of course, the audience does.)

It's the shocking fact of Juliet's defiance alone, for which the parents can think of no other explanation than Tybalt's death, that provokes the parental rage.

Capulet leaps rapidly and direcly from smug pleasure in the deal with Paris to threatening violence against his own daugher. This is, I should think, almost impossible to make plausible for a modern audience. It may, however, explain Prokofiev's chioce of such dark, driving, ominous music for the court dance that introduces the Capulet ball. Big strides for the men. Rigid lines of dancers advancing towards the audience. Perhaps that's all there to tell us something about the brutality that lies just beneath the glamour, hierarchy and formality of the Capulet's world.

This is a little stale by now, but I wanted to get my response in. First, I don't think this kind of discussion is off topic at all, for both Prokofiev and his various choreographers including Martins are using a very familiar play, and how they handle character and incident is inevitably seen in relation to the well-known original.

I don't find Shakespeare's Capulet implausible at all, either. Rather, he seems to me a familiar type: the domineering patriarch or boss figure who is mild one minute and quick to anger the moment his authority is challenged, after which his affability returns with equal rapidity. Since (alas) I work for someone like this, the personality does not seem far-fetched or unrealistic to me in the least.

Your Hobbesian idea, too, of the "brutality that lies just beneath" the Capulet surface sounds more to me like the world of King Lear than of Romeo and Juliet. But even in Lear, amid all the brutality and inhumanity, there are abundant moments of generosity, self-sacrifice, and empathy.

[Klavier]

Some random thoughts on the R+J, for which I had three pair of tickets & exchanged the second two pair for repertory.

The main set piece resembles more than a little the restrooms at the Central Park Zoo.

The costumes would look a lot better without that graffiti all over them (as might the set .. well, maybe not).

Robert Fairchild might just grow up to be the dancer I had hoped Angel Corella would turn out to be.

The production and choreography could do with a massive amount of tinkering. Restoring the first curtain to after the balcony scene (& keep II & III together so we don't lose the dreaded streamlining effect) would be a start. Act I seems interminable enough without adding a scene to it & the two marketplace scenes make more sense coming together with the wedding sandwiched in between. They are mirror images & need to be seen together. More differentiation in the choreography for the balcony and bedroom scenes is a must.

It's probably too much to hope for, but Wheeldon's input might bring a hint of romance to the fore.

I agree with most of this, but not with your proposed intermission point. Done that way, only one major event (the meeting of the lovers) occurs in Act One, making whatever follows intermission too rapid and abrupt. To my mind, the mistake was taking a musical-dramatic structure designed for three acts and fitting this square peg into a 2-act round hole. Why not two intermissions? After all, many of the repertory programs have two breaks and the audience is out in 2.5 hours in total.

[zerbinetta]

Pokofiev put his first intermission after the Balcony Scene and it surely belongs there. If we must "streamline", my suggestion was to put II & III together as they are not that long & it would at least keep some consistency intact.

But, of course, 2 intermissions would be ideal. However, based on recent CB history, it seems unlikely to happen.