Romeo + Juliet on Live From Lincoln Center

[DeborahB]

Lesley Stahl, a highly respected, award-winning journalist, made a mistake (she seemed a bit nervous which I found charming) with a "big" name. Mr. Martins corrected her (politely and with good humor, I might add).

End of story.

Oh, but I should add that Ms. Stahl is also a member of the Board of Directors at NYCB, and volunteers a lot of her time at various events (including the "Live From Lincoln Center" event) to help promote NYCB.

I'd also like to clear up something about PBS shows (as I do work with various PBS stations). Each local affiliate has the option to not only pick up an individual show, including "R&J", but can choose what day, and time of day to put the show on the local station. Whether shows are produced by a big PBS affiliate like WNET in NYC, WGBH in Boston, or KQED in SF, or by a syndicator (for public television shows) like "American Public Television, " it is rare that a public television show runs from coast-to-coast at the same time (anymore, at least). These stations try to figure out what their viewers want, and what programs will bring in the best ratings -- also good for donations (the shows themselves are offered for free, as part of an local affiliate program). For example, most public television stations do have a two hour "cooking" block of shows on either a Sat. or Sunday afternoon because they do well in the ratings. But it's the individual stations' choice --they don't have to run the shows at all, and they can choose certain shows and leave out others.

Anyone who wanted to see "R&J" at 8pm EST on Thursday but couldn't (because it wasn't offered), should write/email their local public television station to express their concern. I do have to say the public television folks are really terrific; they try to offer up fine programs for their local viewship, on minimal funding. And they do like feedback. Again, they were very hard hit by the recession, and have had big staff cuts -- that includes crew members to shoot live tv shows.

[bart]

I must apologize, being the person to introduce the Fontaine-de Haviland line. I hoped the " " would convey that I intended a joke.

Anyone who wanted to see "R&J" at 8pm EST on Thursday but couldn't (because it wasn't offered), should write/email their local public television station to express their concern. I do have to say the public television folks are really terrific; they try to offer up fine programs for their local viewship, on minimal funding. And they do like feedback.

Good suggestion!

[richard53dog]

I remember commenting two years ago that I felt the choreography was very weak, the dramatic development was poor and the physical elements; i.e. sets and costumes were pure ugly.

Watching it on tv didn't change my views. Unfortunately Sterling Hyltin didn't appear particularly youthful on camera, aside from being untelegenic in ttheir first scene together the main difference between Juliet and her nurse were their costumes.

I just don't get the PBS situation. NYCB puts on some super programs, if they wanted to showcase NYCB WHY pick this????? If a story ballet was needed WHY

choose NYCB. Midsummer Nights Dream was already filmed and a different performance was shown on LFLC. Nutcracker has been filmed and Coppelia was already LFLC'd. That only leaves the three Martins pieces, that well is pretty dry!

[kfw]

Lesley Stahl, a highly respected, award-winning journalist, made a mistake (she seemed a bit nervous which I found charming) with a "big" name. Mr. Martins corrected her (politely and with good humor, I might add).

End of story.

Actually there was nothing good-humored about it. Martins corrected her without so much as a smile. Stahl is a fine, respected journalist , as you say,and seems like a lovely person, but her questions were a little odd. First she asked him why we were "ready" for yet another Romeo and Juliet, which was a good but tough question that he didn't really answer. But after asking why he'd chosen teenagers for the lead roles, she wasn't satisfied with his reply, but kept pressing him on the subject. "But, but, as dancers, what do you think you gained . . . ?" (he'd just told her), followed by "but you don't think you lost anything?" (he'd just told her he'd gained everything). It was as if she was second guessing his decision. And then she compared Paris' smacking Romeo to child abuse ("it's almost like"), and asked him to explain that. It was another good question, but tactlessly phrased. And then she asked him what we should look for in the second act, prompting him to reply in part "I don't have to tell you what to look for; the public knows what to look for." I don't about anyone else, but the whole interview made me uncomfortable.

There were things about this production I didn't like: the set reminded me of the Stonehenge prop in "Spinal Tap;" the courtiers preceding Juliet's parents into the ballroom reminded me of characters on "Star Trek"; at the end of the balcony scene, the emotional height of the production so far, we're distracted by the moving of the set, and then denied a chance to savor that scene in memory because the ballet continues without intermission there with a scene of far less emotional weight; and how in the world do Romeo's friends get away with groping Juliet's nurse as they try to get their hands on Juliet's note?

Having said all that, I largely enjoyed the ballet, and my far more stronger feelings are of admiration, not just for the beautiful dancers, but also for Martins and his collaborators for having the courage of their convictions and working hard to bring their ideas to fruition.

[papeetepatrick]

I don't about anyone else, but the whole interview made me uncomfortable.

That's just Stahl's style. I've known for some years that she's a big patron of NYCB just from looking through the Playbills. She's the second big TV journalist to be on the board of directors that I know of, the first Robert McNeil (he may still be, and there may be others I don't know about), who hosted a big NYCB 'Dance in America' (I think?) in the early or mid-90s. He's a lot more naturally easygoing, the way you describe it it sounds like she was trying to work with the material in much the way she does with things in which she's more well-informed. C'est normale, it wouldn't be a Lesley Stahl interview without a little nagging. Most of the big TV interviewers are like that, it's just some know how to do it without the prodding showing (Ms. Walters is amazing that way, and gets people to tell all sorts of things they'd surely promised themselves they wouldn't!).

First she asked him why we were "ready" for yet another Romeo and Juliet, which was a good but tough question that he didn't really answer..

Yeah, that was a good question, because it seems from most reports here that we might not have been any more'ready' for than we were for the 'Swan Lake' and 'Sleeping Beauty' he made, and this could have been a clever way to say 'did we really need this R + J?' Most here seem to be answering 'not that much', but he could hardly be expected to see it as being anything other than urgent necessity.

[SanderO]

Wasn't this production pretty much panned all around? If so, what is the thought behind pushing something which has not received critical acclaim? Why not drop it or improve it, but the same weird looking staging? And broadcast on TV? Is there some sort of death wish there or serious denial?

[Jack Reed]

Skipped the show, having seen the Love Scene, which I thought ought to be the high point, at Workshop and thought it "very weak", as richard53dog says of the whole thing.

But Stahl's questioning of Martins reads here like a journalist's habitual trying to bring out what might be there. Something, anything. Maybe a little unthinking in a board member who might think instead of trying to make the AD look as good as possible, which is not how he reads here. But maybe she just thought if she kept it up, he'd say something more valuable than he had already.

As to why the choice of R + J: Isn't this ballet a hot item? Doesn't it sell tickets? Sell out, in fact? So, you need to bring in money, you publicize what you have reason to think people will buy. I happen to think television can do better, that even when it presents ballet (or drama, for that matter) simply and straight, it has some incidental publicity value, but when you look at how ballet is often presented on screen nowadays, isn't it a very busy presentation, almost like a commercial? So, does that treatment reveal something about the thinking of the people doing it? That they are thinking mainly about making a commercial, and little more?

My speculation for the evening.

[hbl]

Disclaimer - I generally do not like story ballets (except maybe Slaughter). So we traded in our tickets for Thursdays R+B for Wednesday :-)

The issue discussed about the beauty of the dancers is less relevant to me than their ages. You need young dancers to pull it off as far as I am concerned. Seeing an older dancer - no matter how good - doing Juliet just doesn't wash with me. Peter got that one right. I did however watch it on Thrusday night. And the best part of it is some wonderful dancing by Hyltin and Robbie Fairchild as well as the magnificent sword play. Those are real (if dull) swords and the choreography of their duels is amazing. And they never get to do a retake. Errol Flynn never had it so hard...

When I saw it 2 years ago, sitting in the front of the orchestra the set was so dreary and dull looking. Everything was so dark. It is better on TV (or from above) where the floor provides some contrast and a little lightness.

I also understand why Peter chose this ballet - it is a real money maker for the company as best I can tell. They have invested marketing bucks on it and it must bring in the general public more than a more traditional NYCB program.

[kfw]

Patrick and Jack, thanks for your perspectives on the interview. As journalism, it was fascinating; as theater, I found it discomfiting. It was odd to see the artist asked to defend his choices on an occasion on which they would usually be celebrated. Of course there was some celebrating too.

The Ballet Talk thread on this ballet when it premiered two years ago is here.

[Mel Johnson]

What I saw in this presentation, in this medium, was that the bones of the show were ill-assembled. The score has been treated as if it had been thrown down a flight of stairs and someone who had heard it two or three times had been told to put it back in order. The same could be said for the choreography. When you've never seen a given ballet before, but get the inkling that you've seen this part before, yellow flags go up. The confirming moment for me was the part of the balcony pas de deux where the B theme comes back cantabile, and Romeo provides gentle support for Juliet as she does hops on pointe in arabesque - right out of the Ashton version. As things continued, I recognized more Ashton (actually lots more, some MacMillan, Cranko, even Oscar Araiz' version seen in NYC with Joffrey. Eclectic is one thing, derivative is another. Quoting a famous bit from another's choreography might be homage, but this looked like plagiarism, and rather disjointed plagiarism at that. It was a bit like reading Shakespeare from Bartlett's Quotations. The outstanding bit of choreography, I thought, was the Mandolin Dance for boy students. It was a good use of their talents, which are usually not much noted, but the dance was unmotivated. When it's presented as part of a street wedding procession, it makes more sense, as these are the entertainers, but these seemed like a troupe of buskers who just happened by. Once the dancing started, though, things were all right. There's something wrong when the high point of a dramatic ballet is a divertissement entrée.

[Ray]

Patrick and Jack, thanks for your perspectives on the interview. As journalism, it was fascinating; as theater, I found it discomfiting. It was odd to see the artist asked to defend his choices on an occasion on which they would usually be celebrated. Of course there was some celebrating too.

I agree with kfw about the appropriateness of Stahl's questions in the broadcast: I mean it's a bit late to start interrogating the production at halftime. If indeed she is a patron of NYCB, her questions need to be raised earlier: Repertory choice is a systemic issue. But that's the problem, isn't it? Who's going to question Peter Martins, or any other AD, in a forum where hard discussions happen? It's easier to take potshots and ask gotcha questions after the fact that will lead to absolutely no change whatsoever (NOT that I'm a Martins fan, mind you, nor do I mind watching an AD squirm in the least. But my amusement probably won't translate into meaningful changes in the field).

The costumes, BTW, remind me of those 1950s Shakespeare musicals, like Kiss Me Kate.

[bingham]

Like a high school "Kiss Me Kate" production.

[papeetepatrick]

I agree with kfw about the appropriateness of Stahl's questions in the broadcast: I mean it's a bit late to start interrogating the production at halftime. If indeed she is a patron of NYCB, her questions need to be raised earlier: Repertory choice is a systemic issue. But that's the problem, isn't it? Who's going to question Peter Martins, or any other AD, in a forum where hard discussions happen? It's easier to take potshots and ask gotcha questions after the fact that will lead to absolutely no change whatsoever

I can see why you might think that, but I see it as guts on her part, or just good instincts, to ask them whenever she gets the chance--because she might not get another--I like what Jack said, to try to 'get him to say something more valuable than he has said already', 'anything', which is how a hard-nosed journalist has to work incidentally--not necessarily knowing what it might be in advance. He's not Sarah Palin, but 'gotcha questions' have to be done, esp. when there is so much talk (and more excellent by this morning, which will help my dread ordeal of having to give up the first part of my Sunday afternoon since I've shot my mouth off...), and if we've now heard her ask even one eyeball-to-eyeball question of Martins, even if he didn't answer it, then the fact that she is also part of NYCB board proves her integrity as a good journalist still more. I wish there were more of this kind of fearlessness. At NYReview of Books, for example, you have writers who will hardly ever say anything even slightly perjorative about the other contributors even when it is warranted (and this includes some of the best writers they have that agree to keep some things 'in-house'). Here Stahl is cutting through such 'clubbishness', and I find this admirable and pretty rare.

And although it won't lead to 'change' in terms of what's already showing on television, it may well lead to some new thinking through of what Sander0 said, and others, about why this piece had to be exposed so, aside from the usual crass necessity.

[Ray]

... if we've now heard her ask even one eyeball-to-eyeball question of Martins, even if he didn't answer it, then the fact that she is also part of NYCB board proves her integrity as a good journalist still more. I wish there were more of this kind of fearlessness. At NYReview of Books, for example, you have writers who will hardly ever say anything even slightly perjorative about the other contributors even when it is warranted (and this includes some of the best writers they have that agree to keep some things 'in-house'). Here Stahl is cutting through such 'clubbishness', and I find this admirable and pretty rare.

And although it won't lead to 'change' in terms of what's already showing on television, it may well lead to some new thinking through of what Sander0 said, and others, about why this piece had to be exposed so, aside from the usual crass necessity.

Again, I don't really disagree with any of this (it's great to watch an autocrat squirm), and hadn't really considered the repercussions of Stahl's status as an interviewr--i.e., that her questions may be more meaningful b/c other patrons might listen? I do hope that this will lead to more pre-production questioning. And like you, the crass necessity arguments are really starting to rub me the wrong way--I mean even if R&J does fill seats, it's not going to boost NYCB's bottom line significantly unless they do 8 shows of it a week--and even then maybe not.

[Mel Johnson]

Can we start discussing the show more than the intermission here, please? Another symptom of things being not beautiful at the ballet is things that happened while the curtain was down generate more interest than it what happened when it was up!

[papeetepatrick]

Okay, Mel, but I now just saw it, and will just say that I thought the interview was excellent, agree with DeborahB on this part, and think Ms. Stahl and Martins were both fine, the 'Joan Fontaine' tiny gaffe didn't matter a whit, she even smoothly says 'not the actress'. And talk about TELEGENIC--wow, does she get more gorgeous with the years! and IMO as gracious as possible. (Okay, promise not to say more about the intermission. Thanks.)

Anyway, whole productionb has sawed-off look, never feels Italian at all, feels all boxed-in and the male dancers' costumes except for Romeo's make them look squat. Everything looks pretty squat and closed-in. Are there R & J's by RDB? Because sometimes I wonder (since I don't know) if Martins's often 'compact look' in his pieces comes from what is very naturally the scale in Bournonville, as La Sylphide with smaller, more subtle movements. Here exuberance is needed, and you don't ever get it.

Agree that Hiltin's (mainly, what some arms and legs, and not only that, then they move! oh yes, I love her in the balcony Scene) and Fairchild. I'm never going to like a Romeo (most likely) as much as Corella (who is the focus even with someone like Alessandra Ferri, he is so perfectly cast as Romeo. I don't think I've seen the Ashton, mainly the Cranko, which I saw a lot back in the late 70s, and the McMillan. Much preferred these, they are expansive, not boxed-in and -up.

But Ms. Hyltin worth the whole fairly pedestrian business, I hadn't seen her before, and didn't know how exquisite she is.

[Mel Johnson]

I have to agree with you, Patrick, and even on the small screen with relative acres of open space around the moving image(s), it still seemed claustrophobic. The dancers did make the show, and that's as it should be, but my concern is in great measure for the craft of making ballets at NYCB. The work just isn't put together well, in my opinion.

[sandik]

I have to agree with you, Patrick, and even on the small screen with relative acres of open space around the moving image(s), it still seemed claustrophobic.

I think part of your response comes from the camera work here. I started watching dance on television with the wonderful Dance in America/Balanchine works, and my preferences are influenced by them, but having done a little film work in the past I know how very difficult it is to balance the near and the far view of something. One of the most powerful tools film and television has is the close-up, and yet a ballet is rarely choreographed with that in mind. Bringing the camera in close on a moment that's really designed to be seen from further away creates an odd tension, and yet, keeping a wide shot for any length of time makes the dancers seem like ants in a colony. The fact that they're shooting a live performance, and the limitations that places on camera setups as well as the overall tension of getting it right the first time makes for a very constrained kind of production.

[miliosr]

Coming late to the party as my local public television station waited until today to air this . . .

Where to begin with this disastrous production? (FEMA could spend years studying what went wrong with this one.) Other posters have covered the low lights so I'll focus on the most egregious problem: the costumes. Oh brother! Whoever the poster was who referenced Star Trek was spot on. The ball scene reminded one of nothing so much as one of those episodes of Star Trek where The Enterprise plays host to visiting dignitaries from the Federation and the viewer gets to see a raft of extras parading around in garish, "futuristic" costumes. I half expected to see a Ferengei come strolling onstage!!!

Since I pretty much hated the entire thing, the intermission ended up being the highlight for me. (Sorry Mel!) Leslie Stahl's interview with Peter Martins was great -- there was more crackling tension in that interview than in the entire production. (I guess no one bothered to tell her that she was interviewing a second or third-rate choreographer instead of a dictator of a Third World country.) The only thing that was missing was a tactless question about Suzanne Farrell.

The only other thing to hold my attention was Adrian Danchig-Waring's face. Facially, he can look quite angular at times (somewhat like David Bowie during his "plastic soul" phase circa 1975) and then at others he can look movie star handsome. He was definitely the latter in this one. Is he such a chameleon that he can "alter" his looks depending on the production? If so, nice talent to have!

The New York City Ballet may be one of the "best companies in the world" but this production will never convince anyone of that premise. Overall grade (not including the intermission, which was an 'A'): F+ (The + for the man of 1,000 faces, Adrian Danchig-Waring.)

P.S. When this production was first announced, I was super-annoyed that Peter Martins went with this production rather than staging Antony Tudor's abstracted version. What a masterstroke that would have been for Peter Martins, I thought! (Being the savior of the Tudor Romeo and Juliet at ABT's expense!) But, having sat through this production today, I'm now convinced that that would have been a bad idea. Whatever their many other virtues may be, the City Ballet dancers would not appear to be naturals for the subtleties of Tudor.

[Ray]

Since I pretty much hated the entire thing, the intermission ended up being the highlight for me. (Sorry Mel!) Leslie Stahl's interview with Peter Martins was great -- there was more crackling tension in that interview than in the entire production. (I guess no one bothered to tell her that she was interviewing a second or third-rate choreographer instead of a dictator of a Third World country.)

Hilarious.

[PeggyR]

Coming late to the party as my local public television station waited until today to air this . . .

Same here.

Disclaimer: Highly unscientific survey with only one participant.

First act: Loved the dancers; everything else .

Intermission: Not interested so decided to wash dishes.

Second act: Literally forgot about it; instead, finished washing dishes, cleaned stove and refrigerator, mopped kitchen floor.

Conclusion: Washing dishes is more interesting than NYCB's R+J.

[cubanmiamiboy]

Intermission: Not interested so decided to wash dishes.

Second act: Literally forgot about it; instead, finished washing dishes, cleaned stove and refrigerator, mopped kitchen floor.

Conclusion: Washing dishes is more interesting than NYCB's R+J.

[duffster]

I loved the dancers but I could not persevere in watching it. I tried, I really tried. I think the costumes got to me. A moving crayola box .

[artspatron07]

I am intrigued that Ms. Stahl would not have known the difference between Margot Fonteyn, the British prima ballerina assoluta, who was considered by many to be the greatest English ballerina, and Joan Fontaine, when she interviewed Peter Martins backstage during intermission. Maybe it was a slip of the tongue; but, please this disturbing! I am glad that Mr. Martins tactfully corrected her during the interview.

Maybe the press needs a little extra arts education from time to time!

[4mrdncr]

I agree with Mel about the derivative choreography. I too saw many many instances of "plagarism". And I also agree it was lacking in cohesive motivation of characters, continuity of phrasing/choreography.

I also told friends and relatives it was designed by children using Crayolas, and I too stopped watching several times to do other things (though kept it on in the background so I could listen to that--sadly--truncated score.)

Thanks DeborahB for the post detailing the workings of the PBS national schedule and the constraints smaller stations must consider regarding programming/scheduling choices. Of course I know the system VERY well (primarily as a long-time employee, and later because of my graduate thesis on PBS funding and its consequences), and mentioned the situation more obliquely in my original post. Besides us, it is something the larger stations, and PBS itself, need to consider more.

However, I understand the choice to do this production for LFLC...

1) As I wrote on another thread, R&J is an easy choice of ballet for the unitiated. At least they already know the story even if they don't understand the dance.

2) PBS already filmed ABT's R&J, and there are/were several other telecasts by PBS (I remember SFB's) and other foreign networks/dance companies (RB, Bolshoi, et.al.) broadcast or now available on dvd. So that's why NYCB now.

3) Those who have never seen another production, don't know how bad this is. Young, inexperienced, pop-culture saturated viewers want neon (flashy, Disneyfied) colors, shortened texts, AND youth, youth, youth. So it is no surprise the marketing and admins chose this version.

4) Regarding #3 above, I always remember what Zeffirelli wrote about his R&J film...

Casting for Montagues: Apply to universites. Casting for Capulets: Apply to the streets. Costuming for M's: (old money)cool blues/greens. Costuming for C's: (nouveu riche) bright flashy reds/oranges. And since 1968 everyone has 'followed suit'. (Sorry couldn't resist the pun).

Regarding camera placement. LFLC has filmed many times in the State Theater, they know where cameras are allowed to go. Also, if they did any preproduction, they have seen the performance at least once, and probably more, before the "live" broadcast, and should know the staging, choreography (generally as to stage direction and exits/entrances if not individual steps), light/music cues. In addition, there is usually someone from the dance company in the control room with the director helping to cue things. Therefore, once again I say: To still use the camera angles they did in the order they did, shows inexperience filming dance.

That's all for now folks.