New York City Ballet galas are never about good taste. Wear all your jewelry, find a dress that borders on ostentatious, judge everyone’s state of thinness — that’s what they’re about.
So last Thursday’s gala began with the company sparkling in some of its most precious jewels, Rubies, but then it waltzed out works that were the equivalent of Kmart jewelry — no offense to Kmart intended. Both new pieces — instead of being celebrated at a gala — should have been workshopped and gone through out-of-state "try-outs” followed by critical editing before landing on the New York stage. NYCB’s habit of just throwing stuff out on stage to see if it works before (and without) providing oversight from producers and editors wastes a lot of money.
Justin Pecks’ new pas de deux for Tiler Peck and Roman Mejia, Dig the Say, confused gimmick and theme. It was desperate to be cool, right down to the rag headband that Mejia wore to insure that we understood that the dancer was engaging in sweaty sport as though we wouldn’t get that from watching him bounce a red ball against the wall. The dance was a crazy quilt of Tiler's and Roman's' favorite steps which now show up in this choreographer's works like tired cliches. Inviting the PUBLIQuartet to force Vijay Iyer’s erratic and esoteric composition onto the audience was, again, desperate to be cool. We’re all constantly wowed by what Tiler and Roman can do in terms of classical technique, but why waste it on drivel? In a short time, ABT’s Aran Bell and Gillian Murphy will be guesting with NYCB for an evening. Why not reciprocate with a guest slot for Peck and Mejia in ABT’s Le Corsaire or Don Quixote? Just thinking out loud here . . .
Amy Hall Garner’s Underneath, There Is Light, can be commended for effort for how it swept lines of dancers across the stage and promoted dramatic moments that only the choreographer could possibly understand. The costumes, black for the first part of the dance and sunny cream for second part of the dance, tried to help us along in understanding the title and concept. But the hodgepodge of music and steps just didn’t amount to very much.
Contrast all this with the Balanchine/Stravinsky Rubies excerpt from Jewels that thrilled with its themes, musicality, structure, and individual interpretations. We’re not sure that we have ever seen anyone go after Rubies the way Mira Nadon did in the gala performance. Hers was such a bold in-your-face performance that she nearly made the audience blush — while it also headed for cover. Megan Fairchild and Anthony Huxley delivered the always-appreciated superb performances — their energy and wit driving their sparkling rapport. The corps de ballet was in fine form. Piano soloist Stephen Gosling ripped into the Stravinsky score and spurred the dancers right to the outside edge of possibility. It was a tremendous performance from all.
Oftentimes when new works premiered by NYCB have not succeeded, their problems have begun with the choice of music. In coming seasons, what we need is a program offering along the lines of Conductors’ Choices where NYCB’s full team of conductors chooses an evening of music that will enthrall and uplift the audience, and then the company invites choreographers to make new ballets to it. Some smart choices would be Brahms, Mozart, Bruch, Rachmaninoff, Beethoven. Then, NYCB’s marketing department should take aim at the audience in Geffen Hall and tantalize them with solicitations of “Come hear the greatest classical music in the most comfortable seats in all of Lincoln Center” and “Tired of trying to enjoy great classical music while sitting in a chair that is like an economy seat on Spirit Airlines? Come across the plaza and sit in our plushy seats with lumbar support AND extraordinary leg room while we play gorgeous Brahms and Mozart. The concession food and drink are the same, and customers don’t have to walk the length of an airport terminal to find a bathroom.You’ll never want to leave.” This is simply a helpful suggestion — if NYCB wants better new works, it should start by demanding better music.
The H.H. Pump Bump Award, a Jada Dubai creation that features all the Jewels – Rubies, Emeralds, and of course Diamonds, is bestowed upon Mira Nadon for her stylishly uncompromising Tall Girl in Rubies.
14 responses to “NYCB Spring Gala 5/2
Gimmicks and Gowns”
Haglund – When are Gillian and Aran dancing with NYCB (I assume a Midsummer)?
Thanks!
Rachel
Haglund – When are Gillian and Aran dancing with NYCB (I assume a Midsummer)?
Thanks!
Rachel
Oh – NM I see on the 26th 🙂
Oh – NM I see on the 26th 🙂
love your painfully accurate marketing suggestion!
love your painfully accurate marketing suggestion!
Thanks for this excellent review, Haglund! I marvel at your ability to take exactly what I am thinking and put it on paper in such a concise and entertaining way! I especially agree with your comments about bad choice of music in new choreography. Whatever happened to picking music simply because it’s nice to listen to? And it would make sense to put some pretty dance steps to it? Let’s not overthink this.
Thanks for this excellent review, Haglund! I marvel at your ability to take exactly what I am thinking and put it on paper in such a concise and entertaining way! I especially agree with your comments about bad choice of music in new choreography. Whatever happened to picking music simply because it’s nice to listen to? And it would make sense to put some pretty dance steps to it? Let’s not overthink this.
I really love your wonderfully descriptive reviews, Haglund, thank you!
Back in the 2010’s ballet was thought to be dying and the future was thought to be in combining the old with the new; bring the activist Modern Dance mindset into the classical realm. We are seeing the offspring of that marriage now. The big ballet choreographers (Peck, Wheeldon, Ratmansky) are working in a politically saturated world where they may unfortunately feel the need to “take a stand,” “raise their voice,” “use their platform” (or whatever other platitude you want) instead of make something beautiful and lasting.
Maybe the problem with new works is that many current choreographers seem to be in an inward-looking bubble; they appear to start a project with a certain, self-conscious need to be “relevant”, or cool. Or they take a “steps first” approach. Even Alexei Ratmansky (who has a Balanchine-like pedigree), when discussing his ballet Pictures at an Exhibition on the NYCB Youtube promo said “My role as the choreographer is to give good steps to the dancers. The challenge here is that you don’t really know what the piece is going to be.” This shows, I think, his dancer-centered approach (which may stem from the fact that he himself was a wildly talented dancer) as he revels in devilishly complex combinations as well as displaying technical expertise. It’s a theory. Still, his music choices are cogent and sophisticated.
As you have said as much many times: Balanchine (the fully trained classical musician) shows us that good ballets have good music. Period. It’s that simple. In addition, he pointedly avoided political or topical subjects because he was focused on making art that could and would transcend generations (young and old alike admire Balanchine choreography) and fashionable trends (PAMTGG his big mistake) and partisan politicians (imagine a ballet about the Bay of Pigs!). It was about making great music beautifully visible.
I think recent creations (like Wheeldon’s Alice or Winter’s Tale) that are unabashedly based on narrative, have been more successful (popularity can insinuate longevity) because the literary foundations were already reliably strong. Also, the Balanchine Rule still applies; a good story ballet needs good music, even if it is inextricably linked to the action.
I am sorry to quote another reviewer, Haglund, but I love what Hilary Stroh wrote on the bachtrack.com website the other day when reviewing Kansas City Ballet’s performance,
“What Balanchine did in creating Jewels in 1967 is to give us ballet for ballet’s sake. It’s autotelic – complete in itself. If you strip away the narratives, the rustic peasants and the lovelorn aristocrats, the swans and the preternatural forces of evil, and just present the forms, the geometry, the thing itself, Jewels is what you get. Add in Van Cleef and Arpels for marketing, and Karinska’s irresistible costumes and you have an American classic. If there’s purity, there’s also exposure: you don’t get to hide behind a story: this is a concept ballet in primary colors.”
The King (of ballet) still rules. Long live the King!
I really love your wonderfully descriptive reviews, Haglund, thank you!
Back in the 2010’s ballet was thought to be dying and the future was thought to be in combining the old with the new; bring the activist Modern Dance mindset into the classical realm. We are seeing the offspring of that marriage now. The big ballet choreographers (Peck, Wheeldon, Ratmansky) are working in a politically saturated world where they may unfortunately feel the need to “take a stand,” “raise their voice,” “use their platform” (or whatever other platitude you want) instead of make something beautiful and lasting.
Maybe the problem with new works is that many current choreographers seem to be in an inward-looking bubble; they appear to start a project with a certain, self-conscious need to be “relevant”, or cool. Or they take a “steps first” approach. Even Alexei Ratmansky (who has a Balanchine-like pedigree), when discussing his ballet Pictures at an Exhibition on the NYCB Youtube promo said “My role as the choreographer is to give good steps to the dancers. The challenge here is that you don’t really know what the piece is going to be.” This shows, I think, his dancer-centered approach (which may stem from the fact that he himself was a wildly talented dancer) as he revels in devilishly complex combinations as well as displaying technical expertise. It’s a theory. Still, his music choices are cogent and sophisticated.
As you have said as much many times: Balanchine (the fully trained classical musician) shows us that good ballets have good music. Period. It’s that simple. In addition, he pointedly avoided political or topical subjects because he was focused on making art that could and would transcend generations (young and old alike admire Balanchine choreography) and fashionable trends (PAMTGG his big mistake) and partisan politicians (imagine a ballet about the Bay of Pigs!). It was about making great music beautifully visible.
I think recent creations (like Wheeldon’s Alice or Winter’s Tale) that are unabashedly based on narrative, have been more successful (popularity can insinuate longevity) because the literary foundations were already reliably strong. Also, the Balanchine Rule still applies; a good story ballet needs good music, even if it is inextricably linked to the action.
I am sorry to quote another reviewer, Haglund, but I love what Hilary Stroh wrote on the bachtrack.com website the other day when reviewing Kansas City Ballet’s performance,
“What Balanchine did in creating Jewels in 1967 is to give us ballet for ballet’s sake. It’s autotelic – complete in itself. If you strip away the narratives, the rustic peasants and the lovelorn aristocrats, the swans and the preternatural forces of evil, and just present the forms, the geometry, the thing itself, Jewels is what you get. Add in Van Cleef and Arpels for marketing, and Karinska’s irresistible costumes and you have an American classic. If there’s purity, there’s also exposure: you don’t get to hide behind a story: this is a concept ballet in primary colors.”
The King (of ballet) still rules. Long live the King!
Thanks much Erich! While it’s true that Balanchine avoided choreographing political or topical works (exc: PAMTGG), NYCB today tries to engage in revisionist history by falsely claiming that Balanchine had an “incredible commitment to creating new work that speaks to the present” (Fall 2023 NEWS for NYCB Supporters). He didn’t try to create work that spoke of then-present political, cultural or popular issues. He simply created ballets from his own desire to see movement realized as it was in his own imagination. There was no strategic initiative to change the world of ballet, to move it in a different direction, to make it “speak to the present”. He was doing what Martha Graham and Anthony Tudor and Frederick Ashton were already doing–realizing the ideas from their own imaginations — not from some “commitment to speak to the present”. That phrase in itself is such a gas-filled, pompous, pretentious suggestion that Balanchine would probably have been embarrassed by it.
Thanks much Erich! While it’s true that Balanchine avoided choreographing political or topical works (exc: PAMTGG), NYCB today tries to engage in revisionist history by falsely claiming that Balanchine had an “incredible commitment to creating new work that speaks to the present” (Fall 2023 NEWS for NYCB Supporters). He didn’t try to create work that spoke of then-present political, cultural or popular issues. He simply created ballets from his own desire to see movement realized as it was in his own imagination. There was no strategic initiative to change the world of ballet, to move it in a different direction, to make it “speak to the present”. He was doing what Martha Graham and Anthony Tudor and Frederick Ashton were already doing–realizing the ideas from their own imaginations — not from some “commitment to speak to the present”. That phrase in itself is such a gas-filled, pompous, pretentious suggestion that Balanchine would probably have been embarrassed by it.
Not to beat a dead horse, but completely agree with the above comments. When Russia fell to communism, ballet was almost banished. Numerous attempts to “speak to the present,” tried to make ballet relevant to Soviet society – those were all failures.
When we think of Soviet ballet, we rarely think about The Bolt, The Red Poppy, The Golden Age, or the Bright Stream (granted Ratmansky’s production was great). Those ballets certainly spoke to the Soviet present. Instead we think of Romeo and Juliet, Spartacus, Ivan the Terrible, The Fountain of Bakhchisarai. Those ballets spoke to universal beauty, not relevant for the present but relevant for eternity.
Even still – look at politics today. What ballets did National Ballet of China bring to North Korea in 2018? Red Detachment of Women, which certainly spoke to present life in China, but paired with Giselle. Giselle speaks cross-culturally because it’s not focused on the present.
Not to beat a dead horse, but completely agree with the above comments. When Russia fell to communism, ballet was almost banished. Numerous attempts to “speak to the present,” tried to make ballet relevant to Soviet society – those were all failures.
When we think of Soviet ballet, we rarely think about The Bolt, The Red Poppy, The Golden Age, or the Bright Stream (granted Ratmansky’s production was great). Those ballets certainly spoke to the Soviet present. Instead we think of Romeo and Juliet, Spartacus, Ivan the Terrible, The Fountain of Bakhchisarai. Those ballets spoke to universal beauty, not relevant for the present but relevant for eternity.
Even still – look at politics today. What ballets did National Ballet of China bring to North Korea in 2018? Red Detachment of Women, which certainly spoke to present life in China, but paired with Giselle. Giselle speaks cross-culturally because it’s not focused on the present.