cubanmiamiboy Posted October 1, 2007 Share Posted October 1, 2007 I wasn't sure where to post this, so please, move it if needed. I just made up my mind to go and spend a week New York from 12/30 to 01/06 (Yeah, New Year's Eve!), and i found this performance announced at the Lincoln Center Website. I'm dying to see "Jewels" live, because the only reference i have is the elegant approach, (as somebody stated somewhere), of the POB on DVD, and since i'll be seeing the Villela-MCB full lenght version soon, it's going to be interesting to see this more "new yorker" approach, (perhaps closer to Balanchine..?), of the NYCB. What's the general opinion about this version..? I would appreciate a lot any background i could get by the very helpful BT experts... thank you Link to comment
dirac Posted October 1, 2007 Share Posted October 1, 2007 I would also be interested in hearing any comments. Am I correct in thinking that "Jewels" has been out of the repertory for awhile? Link to comment
Helene Posted October 1, 2007 Share Posted October 1, 2007 If you go to Wednesday's performance and like it enough, you can see it again on Friday. The costumes and sets won't be the same as POB's version. (In my opinion, that is sad.) But even with changing standards at NYCB, there are bound to be at least some performances that make it worth your time to see. Plus you'll have three companies to compare. You may also be able to find some of the old Dance in America performances from the '70's in the library on VHS or DVD. There is an abbreviated Emeralds with Merrill Ashley in the Violette Verdy role, Karin von Aroldingen in Mimi Paul's, and Daniel Duell, Heather Watts, and Susan Pilarre in the Pas de Trois, and the Diamonds Pas de Deux with Suzanne Farrell and Peter Martins. (The second half of the Pas de Deux is also in the PBS "Balanchine" bio.) I agree with Arlene Croce that Balanchine's insistance on this casting for the female leads in Emeralds was an over-long experiment. Link to comment
carbro Posted October 1, 2007 Share Posted October 1, 2007 I would also be interested in hearing any comments. Am I correct in thinking that "Jewels" has been out of the repertory for awhile?No, it's been in active rep and performances, depending on casting, have ranged from to . Mr. Martins seems prone to the same kind of "experimental" casting as Mr. B, although not necessarily with Emeralds.Ashley Bouder has performed leads in both Emeralds and Rubies. Chances are she'll show up in both casts (assuming there are only two), so that would make attending any performance worth your while. Link to comment
Klavier Posted October 1, 2007 Share Posted October 1, 2007 I would also be interested in hearing any comments. Am I correct in thinking that "Jewels" has been out of the repertory for awhile?No, it's been in active rep and performances, depending on casting, have ranged from to . Mr. Martins seems prone to the same kind of "experimental" casting as Mr. B, although not necessarily with Emeralds.Ashley Bouder has performed leads in both Emeralds and Rubies. Chances are she'll show up in both casts (assuming there are only two), so that would make attending any performance worth your while. Definitely try to see Ashley Bouder in Rubies if you have a choice. Link to comment
printscess Posted October 1, 2007 Share Posted October 1, 2007 I wasn't sure where to post this, so please, move it if needed. I just made up my mind to go and spend a week New York from 12/30 to 01/06 (Yeah, New Year's Eve!), and i found this performance announced at the Lincoln Center Website. I'm dying to see "Jewels" live, because the only reference i have is the elegant approach, (as somebody stated somewhere), of the POB on DVD, and since i'll be seeing the Villela-MCB full lenght version soon, it's going to be interesting to see this more "new yorker" approach, (perhaps closer to Balanchine..?), of the NYCB. What's the general opinion about this version..? I would appreciate a lot any background i could get by the very helpful BT experts... thank you Hi Cristian, I think it is an error to think of Jewels danced with NYCB closer to Balanchine. IMO, you can't get closer to Balanchine and Jewels than Edward Villela. He originated Rubies. Last year, there was a review of MCB in the NY TImes when they danced at CW Post College on Long Island, and I am paraphrasing but the review stated that if you want to see a true Balanchine company, go and see MCB. That being said, it is always a thrill to see Jewels at The NYS Theater. And oh, what a thrill it was for me to see the original cast in 1967. Link to comment
Leigh Witchel Posted October 1, 2007 Share Posted October 1, 2007 Not that MCB doesn't do a fine job, but I'll admit to being one who doesn't see them as The True Cross. It's worth it to see NYCB if for nothing else to the see the range of dancers. You may love them; they may not be your cup of tea. Of the ones currently dancing Bouder has already been mentioned for good reason. I'd make more decisions when the casting goes up, and then get tickets accordingly. Link to comment
bart Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 I think the comparison should be fascinating, and that alone would be worth the price of admission. I don't know the new Carnival Center in Miami, but MCB will be dancing Jewels in West Palm Beach and Fort Lauderdale on stages significantly smaller than the NY State Theater, for which Balanchine created it. The solos and small ensembles work ae tremendously effective on the smaller stage. But the big ensembles (28 for Diamonds, for instance) benefit from a the extra space. On the whole, Leigh's advice seems best. MCB does a marvellous job with Balanchine, and the new Rubies, which is the only part I've seen from the current production and with the current casting, is tremendously exciting. But it's MCB's job, with MCB's dancers. But those who have used MCB as a stick with which to beat Peter Martins are not doing Miami OR New York any favors. Link to comment
cubanmiamiboy Posted October 2, 2007 Author Share Posted October 2, 2007 Thank you all for your advice. Overall, i see a good vibe around the NYCB production among the posters. I'll report my experience once i'm back from NY. Link to comment
sz Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 >Of the ones currently dancing Bouder has already >been mentioned for good reason. I'd make more decisions >when the casting goes up... Casting comes first, most of the time, for me as well. Bouder is on fire in Rubies, but also look out for Tess (Teresa) Reichlen as the tall female, second lead, in Rubies. Tess, in that role, is a real Balanchine-type treat. Do hope to see some new casting in the lead parts overall in Emeralds and Diamonds this upcoming season.... Link to comment
Leigh Witchel Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 If this makes any sense, Bouder in "Rubies" isn't yet "Rubies" - it's Bouder in "Rubies." If you're in her corner as an artist, you'll find it fascinating (I do.) But she's atypical in the role - think of what Bette Davis might have looked like in Audrey Hepburn's roles. It's still interesting, but the menu for Breakfast at Tiffany's is a wee bit different today. . . I'm also fond of Reichlen, Ringer gives reliably lovely performances in Emeralds as well. Link to comment
Brice Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 Leigh, not quite sure what you are saying re Bouder...maybe I'm tripping up on the analogy....Bette Davis? Please say more..... Link to comment
zerbinetta Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 Sara Mearns, making her Emeralds debut last season, was very beautiful, poetic and lyrical. Link to comment
Leigh Witchel Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 I couldn't find the perfect movie star analogy for Bouder, but I was trying to pick someone tough and knowing, rather than a waif. I said it when I saw it, but Bouder's Rubies is about the most sexually knowing I've ever seen. She's not vulgar - it's just that she doesn't do it playfully or girlishly - or virginally. Her Rubies has been around a bit, and is thoroughly comfortable with that. Link to comment
kfw Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Bouder's Rubies is about the most sexually knowing I've ever seen. She's not vulgar - it's just that she doesn't do it playfully or girlishly - or virginally. Her Rubies has been around a bit, and is thoroughly comfortable with that. That's a great description for the performance I saw in June. I take it that, in following Patricia McBride, playful and girlish (and virginal?) has been more or less the tradition, but the first dancer I saw in the role was Heather Watts, for whom I wouldn't use any of those adjectives. Link to comment
sz Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Getting back to Sara Mearns.... Oh yes!!! In Emeralds, she is divine. Lush, womanly, beautiful, huge sweeping lines and movements. Sara gets better and better each time I've seen her. In Emeralds, she definitely gets/IS the music (Faure). Link to comment
cubanmiamiboy Posted October 3, 2007 Author Share Posted October 3, 2007 BTW, do they use Karinska's originals...? Link to comment
Kathleen O'Connell Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 I couldn't find the perfect movie star analogy for Bouder, but I was trying to pick someone tough and knowing, rather than a waif. I said it when I saw it, but Bouder's Rubies is about the most sexually knowing I've ever seen. She's not vulgar - it's just that she doesn't do it playfully or girlishly - or virginally. Her Rubies has been around a bit, and is thoroughly comfortable with that. From the first I thought she looked like what you'd get if you atom smashed a ballerina with Myrna Loy, Irene Dunn and the Barbara Stanwyck of "All About Eve" -- "knowing" is exactly it, but maybe not "tough" ... Link to comment
sz Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 BTW, do they use Karinska's originals...? No, and the new costumes are ok but not as rich (they look much cheaper). Link to comment
cubanmiamiboy Posted October 3, 2007 Author Share Posted October 3, 2007 BTW, do they use Karinska's originals...? No, and the new costumes are ok but not as rich (they look much cheaper). I love Karinska's...Also, the POB's Lacroix were very tasteful... Link to comment
Recommended Posts