back to Flash Reviews
Review, 2-25: Symmetry Rules
Walzing in Time With City Ballet
By Tom Patrick
Copyright 2000 Tom Patrick
and thoughtful dancer once quipped that she'd heard that a stubborn
insistence on symmetry was the sign of a troubled mind. Food for
thought, huh? In the golden décor of the State Theater Thursday,
the New York City Ballet could be forgiven for giving us a larger
dose of the mirror-image picture. It's just programmed that way.
Um, I mean it was in the program set-up, not that they're programmed
any more than the rest of us.
music of Respighi (drawn from three suites based on Renaissance
and Baroque compositions) is the impetus for Richard Tanner's "Ancient
Airs and Dances," a 1992 Diamond Project commission. Were there
really eighteen dancers out there? Tanner chose to use his ensemble
in smaller numbers most of the time, keeping the bursts of large-scale
dancing as punctuation rather than camouflage. These lovely musical
treatments held sway over all, and I felt Mr. Tanner's choices were
good in that respect as my audio-visual experience became true stereo
when the corps would burst in at the appropriate times. The place
fairly vibrated, in the midst of all those thrumming strings being
bowed, the whole cast synchronized in some snappy petite allegro
sequences. A lot of symmetry, but that was ok. Nothing stood still
for long, and by-and-by the instrumentation and the personnel diminished
to reveal a pas de six, duets, and some nifty transitional passages.
I enjoyed some of the themes danced-out there, God knows they looked
like some tough sequences, but were pleasing in their clarity. I
was tempted to roll my eyes only a couple of times when I thought
I caught a whiff of "The Four Temperaments" in there, either by
design or in the inevitable tendencies of dancers with a second-nature
grasp of a style to link it into another choreographer's work.
held some fresh things, too, and even at great speed was very clean
and synchronized. On the whole, "Ancient Airs" sails along on the
Respighi quite pleasantly, though I would get a yearning soon enough
for someone up there to take a really long step, for a sequence
to really propel people across the stage with the same sort of sweep
and surge that I was hearing in the music. Far from disappointing,
though, it was a crisp piece, smartly done, and I liked the simply-black
costumes(no program credit claim for those; presumably by the choreographer?).
There was no set, and really only two interesting lighting cues,
intimate little attention-getters, but for all of fifteen seconds.
the curtain rose and I thought I was next door at the Opera house,
confronted with a lovely "Viennese" hall: mirrors, large double
doors, sconces, chandelier, and other sundry furnishings, all suspended
in front of a blue-sky cyc. Truly lovely, these opening moments
of George Balanchine's "Liebeslieder Walzer" (to music by Johannes
Brahms, Opus 52 and Opus 65). The pianists (Richard Moredock and
Susan Walters) and four singers clustered in the "downstage right"
corner of this salon, yielding the floor to four very elegant couples.
All were dressed to the nines in beautiful gowns and tail-suits
by Karinska (of course!) Yes, this was to be white-glove Vienna,
a century and a half ago, and according to program notes it is meant
to parallel Brahms's "overwhelming interest in the rhythm and sweep
of the dance movement itself." Indeed, it was a powerful case for
î time, and it was fairly dripping with symmetry. The waltz is a
lovely thing, to be sure, but there are limitations, mainly that
it is classically a two-person, man-woman thing. Generally, y'know?
There was beautiful
dancing, really, and anybody who's done any of that gloved partnering,
gowns/heels sort of thing knows it ain't easy to look so smooth.
Heavens, a lot of kneeling and kissing of ladies' hands! Oh certainly,
there were gliding waltzes, swooping ones, tender and hypnotic ones,
and parts that looked a little courtly (maybe based on some of the
older social dances hanging on in 1850s Vienna?) Our couples of
dancers stayed mostly coupled, apart from those brief spells where
partners are spun away, only to return again on the other side of
the room. But it's all very proper, remember it's olden times in
this salon, and I have to say I admire more in retrospect how the
dancers maintained this civility beautifully---with the wrong touch,
it could look arch or comical. They were terrifically poised throughout
what turned out to be a very long ballet. So long, in fact, that
it has it's own little intermission!
Part One, the couples exit through the huge scenic doors (all by
David Mitchell) and the curtain descends. Pause. Part Two reveals
that our four ball-gowned ladies have traded (up? down?) for some
more theatrical dresses or tutus, and they've put on their pointe
shoes. The gentlemen are still duded up in their tails, but have
jettisoned the gloves. Now we're getting into a Balanchine ballet
that bears more of his stamp, for on pointe and in the sure hands
of the cavaliers, these ballerinas are in for a much more expansive
time. A not-too-subtle illustration on the "evolution" of dancing,
a matter dear to Mr. Balanchine from what we're told. Anyway, their
partnering so liberated, we are treated to a slightly looser embodiment
of the waltz, less of the proper sort from before and now composed
in Twentieth Century style. A woman floats in a jete lift, straight
upstage, then straight toward us, a big no-no for the classical
school. He breaks the rules, and yet it's still ballet, it's still
waltz. (I'm always amazed how uncomplicated it looks sometimes:
do the step to the East once, the South, West, North. There goes
a few bars of music---wow! They said Mr. Balanchine worked fast,
and I can believe it.) Ultimately the couples' more private dialogues
bring us back around---like a good waltz would---full circle, and
one by one the couples reappear dressed as before. They stroll back
in through the doors two-by-two, regard each other and the musicians
with a satisfaction, before alighting to chairs or loveseats for
a painterly tableau. Charming, a little perplexing, very long.
Vocally, I thought
the performance of the Liebeslieder Walzers to be two for four.
I was really disappointed in the male voices' lack of power and
poor blending. The ladies--soprano Elissa Johnston and mezzo Teri
Medley---fared much better, sending their voices out like a braid
I'd like to
send out big dance kudos to the lovely debuting-in-this-role Jennifer
Ringer, breathtaking Maria Kowroski, the eager gentility of Sebastien
Marcovici, and to the formidably-talented Nikolaj Hubbe. Always
And after awhile,
the symmetry didn't bother me so much.What do you think that means?
back to Flash Reviews