Gia Kourlas — Alexei Ratmansky Joins NYC Ballet

[Buddy]

“At City Ballet, Alexei Ratmansky Can Let His Imagination Run Wild” 

Gia Kourlas — The New York Times

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/06/arts/dance/alexei-ratmansky-city-ballet.html

This is something that I posted elsewhere but would like to include here.

 

Emeralds, I somehow believe that Gia Kourlas is alluding to an ideal possibility and it does have its fascination and indeed excitement if it should actually happen. She seems to be playing with the idea that Alexei Ratmansky could actually be the next Balanchine. He does have great ability but these would be huge shoes to fill and it would require an immense burst of excellence and perhaps considerable restructuring while already well into his career. I think that it’s possible, but it would require an output of unquestionable quality. It certainly would be something to see.

Whether he could literally become the next George Balanchine, considered by many to be one of the two greatest ballet choreographers ever, is something that she seems to definitely be hinting at. She mentions “his love of dancing works by George Balanchine.” Her special excitement with him being at New York City Ballet could be taken as another literal ‘next Balanchine’ reference, this being the ‘House of Balanchine.’

Thank you for reinforcing my positive image of him, that “He’s also known for being a polite, patient and soft spoken person who is very easy to get along with.” On the other hand, his creations are considered very demanding on the dancers, as were George Balanchine’s. I personally would prefer them to be less so and would hope for this in a more ideal situation. I will say that dancers do comment that he’s such a nice and brilliant person that they do try to do their best for him.

Also, thank you for reminding us that Alexei Ratmansky was indeed an accomplished dancer. It certainly could explain his ability to get inside the minds of such artists as Sara Mearns. Adding this dimension, mental elevation and guidance, could enhance a dance artist’s capabilities immensely.

And back to your mention of Christopher Wheeldon for a moment. For me, it brings to mind a definite George Balanchine-Jerome Robbins imagery. Christopher Wheeldon often mentions the influence that Jerome Robbins had on him and his debt to him. I think that it’s often evident in Wheeldon’s works. Also I think that it’s possible to see as much a Balanchine-type depth and structure in Alexei Ratmansky’s works as it is to see a Jerome Robbins’ influence in Christopher Wheeldon's. I would say that in a Balanchine-Robbins comparison, George Balanchine was the giant, whereas in a Ratmansky-Wheeldon one, it would be much more equal. Still the idea of a new age of Balanchine-Robbins in the presence of Ratmansky-Wheeldon at ’The House of Balanchine’ (and Robbins) would be a remarkable occurrence.    

[vipa]

Thank you for your thoughtful remarks Buddy. The idea of "the next Balanchine" has been with us since his death. It's always seemed to me that critics and writers are eager to find/coronate someone for that role. Ratmansky could turn out to be one of the greatest choreographers of this century, creating lasting works that touch us deeply, interest us and bring us joy. Being the next Balanchine is another matter! Balanchine changed the look of ballet, started a school that has the legacy of his training. He hired his dancers, ran his company and of course created new works.  He is known to have said that one day he'd be known more for his teaching than for his choreography. Of course that remains to be seen! In any event, I agree that Gia Kourlas is hoping for the next Balanchine, I just wish that idea would go away! I hope that, at NYCB, Ratmansky finds what he needs right now to produce great works that have staying power. That would be a gift for all of us.

[Buddy]

12 hours ago, vipa said:

Thank you for your thoughtful remarks Buddy. The idea of "the next Balanchine" has been with us since his death. It's always seemed to me that critics and writers are eager to find/coronate someone for that role. Ratmansky could turn out to be one of the greatest choreographers of this century, creating lasting works that touch us deeply, interest us and bring us joy. Being the next Balanchine is another matter! Balanchine changed the look of ballet, started a school that has the legacy of his training. He hired his dancers, ran his company and of course created new works.  He is known to have said that one day he'd be known more for his teaching than for his choreography. Of course that remains to be seen! In any event, I agree that Gia Kourlas is hoping for the next Balanchine, I just wish that idea would go away! I hope that, at NYCB, Ratmansky finds what he needs right now to produce great works that have staying power. That would be a gift for all of us.

Vipa, I agree with you that it’s a long shot — but not an impossible one. And I agree that there’s always the artist on the horizon that many wish (and predict) to be the next George Balanchine or the next Anna Pavlova. Still the search and the proclamations do not tire me if there seems to be any reasonable merit.

Also, I agree that if Alexei Ratmansky simply stays himself, doing what he’s now doing, he should be capable of producing more very fine works and this is more than enough. Yet, from what I’ve seen of Alexei Ratmansky's works, there is a special greatness. With exceptional focus, on an artistic level anyway, the idea of him being another George Balanchine is not an impossible one.

And if Christopher Wheeldon were to enter the picture, not happening for the moment that I know of, it gets even more interesting. By the way, Christopher Wheeldon’s masterpiece, the “After The Rain” duet was quite possibly ‘co-authored’ in part, by Wendy Whelan, now NYCB’s Associate Artistic Director (in charge of new works?), which makes the idea of a Ratmansky-Wheeldon artistic union even more exciting.

Yes, perhaps fantasy, yet an intriguing one — and not an impossibility.

 

Edited January 9, 2023 by Buddy

[Buddy]

Again, something that I posted elsewhere that I hope has enough interest to be added here. It’s an attempt to also clarify my own thinking about a rather new and multi-directional point of view that Gia Kourlas has suggested.

 

Hi, Jeannette, and thanks for your comments and interest. I think that you can come at Alexei Ratmansky from at least two directions and you have focused on one of them, his classical and historical emphasis. This is totally valid.

In a second instance it might be most interesting to go directly to the title of Gia Kourlas’ article and take it from there.

“At City Ballet, Alexei Ratmansky Can Let His Imagination Run Wild” 

In this scenario, and overall, I tend to focus on Alexei Ratmansky more abstractly and not necessarily in terms of entire works, but rather in terms of bits and pieces, and the strong points of his general creativity. I haven’t really tried to analyse specifics, but there’s always something going on in any Ratmansky work that seems brilliant to me no matter what I think of the entirety. This is when I start thinking “Balanchine.”

And when I think “Balanchine” in this way I think about his ability to condense so much interest and artistic genius and variety into a single capsulised work or parts of a larger work. Alexei Ratmansky’s Concerto DSCH and Russian Seasons come to mind immediately.

So maybe if ‘We Let Our Imaginations Run Wild’ somewhat we can see a slightly reinvented Alexei Ratmansky, who takes all his creative strongpoints, ties them firmly together, and produces new crystalizations of ‘Balanchinian’ solidity, diversity and genius. This is just one way of looking at it, but it’s one that sort of ‘intrigues’ me at the moment.

I’ve seen very little of Justin Peck so I can’t really comment on him except that I can see a sort of Jerome Robbins resemblance, perhaps more in his use of animation.

 

[BalanchineFan]

I've read about Ratmansky's historic interests and the research that lead to his Sleeping Beauty, as an example. I haven't seen a lot of the work he's done for ABT.

Primarily I've seen Ratmansky's works for NYCB. I think he should be the next Ratmansky, and that Justin Peck should be the next Justin Peck, Wheeldon the next Wheeldon, etc. We've had a Balanchine, we don't need another. Nor is it possible for a contemporary choreographer to obtain the experience in the Imperial Ballet, the proximity to dancers and teachers who worked with Petipa, or simply put, to become another person and use that other person's brain to create ballets. I think it comes up as a journalistic or marketing idea, though it does intrigue me that you have engaged with it, Buddy. 

I have my own ideas about Balanchine's diversity (the many different styles and subjects of ballets he choreographed) and his genius (the high quality of such a large number of ballets). What do you see as Balanchine's solidity? 

One place where Ratmansky falls short of Balanchine's skill, in my opinion, is in use of space. Granted, I haven't seen Ratmansky's longer ballets for ABT (except for The Golden Cockerel, which I don't recommend), but Balanchine excels at spatial groupings of dancers that change gracefully, one moving tableaux after another. Emeralds, Tshaikovsky Piano Concerto No 2, the three quartets that move in canon in Agon, the last movement of 4T, all of the Bizet, even Allegro Brillante and Concerto Barocco with their relatively small corps de ballet have formations that change and reform as easily as the  spinning of a kaleidoscope. The constantly changing structures please and engage the eye. I've seen nothing remotely like it in any of Ratmansky's work, and certainly not the profusion of formations that you see everywhere with Balanchine.

Formations don't make a ballet, but a lack of pleasing tableaux can kill one.

Edited January 10, 2023 by BalanchineFan

[Buddy]

Thanks, BalanchineFan, for your comprehensive and informative comments. I'd like to say this again about my 'fascination' with the idea that Alexei Ratmansky could become another George Balanchine. It's because it's an exciting idea and because I think that it's somewhat possible, at least on an artist level, but it could involve refocussing and would require a major output of outstanding quality. I think that it's because he has exceptional ability, seems drawn to George Balanchine and that he's doing it at the New York City Ballet. I wouldn't want to imply that he should be an exact duplicate. 

You asked, what do I mean by George Balanchine's "solidity." I simply had 'consistent high quality throughout each work' in mind.

I agree that George Balanchine was a master of "moving tableaux." An Alexei Ratmansky comparison would probably have to be centered around other areas. 

[Quiggin]

I agree with BalanchineFan's assessment of the differences between Balanchine and Ratmansky. Balanchine was the product of a unique set of historical and sociological circumstances, working at the tail end of the Petipa tradition and at the beginnings of the Soviet avant garde, exercises and figures of whose works continually show up in Balanchine's ballets over the years.

Another difference is that Balanchine studied musical composition along with his classmate Yevgeny Mravinsky (Balanchine could easily transcribe complex scores into piano reductions), and so his sense of spatial groupings may have come out of his sense of musical form. You could say Balanchine is more architectural, forms giving birth to forms (Deborah Gans has compared him to Palladio).

Ratmansky, who was fascinated with the experimental Taganka theater (NYPL interview), seems to do work that is more theatrical in basis, such as the Shostakovich Trilogy, in the way he contrasts and blocks out movement, and in his play with displacement and substitution of characters and character-movements in Bernstein in a Bubble. Shostakovich, Scarlatti and Bernstein seem to me to have been his strongest musical choices and have made his strongest ballets – but I've only seen those that have been co-produced here with San Francisco Ballet.

There's also a bit of a unique earthiness you find with Ratmansky that's not in Balanchine. I wouldn't say Ratmansky is a post-modernist but coming much later not the modernist Balanchine was – the practitioner perhaps of a belated modernism.

James, Ratmansky style:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMT9sRipOXw

Edited January 10, 2023 by Quiggin

[Buddy]

Thanks, Quiggin, for your interesting post. I’ll try to keep it in mind as I hopefully see more works by George Balanchine and Alexei Ratmansky. Once again I’d like to include something that I posted elsewhere.

Emeralds said:

“Does NYCB need a next Balanchine or would it be better to have several choreographers who can all collectively continue the legacy of Balanchine and Robbins?”

 

“….several choreographers who can all collectively continue the legacy of Balanchine and Robbins?”

This seems like a good way of putting it, Emeralds. Energised by Gia Kourlas’ article, I do get excited about what Alexei Ratmansky could be capable of at New York City Ballet and about the possibility of him becoming  similar in stature to George Balanchine and related in resemblance, but I’m not sure in what form exactly.

“….several choreographers….” — I’d really like to see Christopher Wheeldon involved with the encouragement and perhaps creative assistance of Associate Artistic Director Wendy Whelan, who as I mentioned before probably had a hand in the creation of Christopher Wheeldon’s “After The Rain.”

Alexei Ratmansky-Christopher Wheeldon-Wendy Whelan

This is a combination that I wouldn’t mind seeing as the continuation of the Balanchine (and Robbins) legacy.

 

Edited January 11, 2023 by Buddy
grammar correction